Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

MR. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of George William Rickards, Esquire, Member for the County of Yorks, West Riding (Skipton Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Sir Irving Albery, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Sir Edmund Brocklebank, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. John, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Mathers, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WOLFRAM AND TIN (PORTUGUESE EXPORTS TO GERMANY)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any further statement to make about the increased supplies of wolfram and tin now being sent from Portugal to Germany?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to my hon. Friend on 26th October, and the further answers on 3rd November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Germany is now being deprived of the bulk of her substitutes for this essential material and that the air attacks

on the molybdenum mines in Norway and the advance of the Russians are depriving the Germans of magnesium, and that therefore it seems to be all the more essential that Germany should be deprived of wolfram from Portugal at the moment and would not such deprivation have a crippling effect on the whole of German war industry?

Mr. Foot: It has been made clear in a previous answer that the Government attach great importance to this trade in wolfram, and the Portuguese Government have been left in no doubt about our views on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (PRICES AND WAGE LEVELS)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he has completed his plans for preventing a large fall in the purchasing power of the working classes during the switch-over of industry from war to peace conditions; and whether he will test their efficacy by putting them into operation in cases where workmen are laid off during a change from one firm of war production to another?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): Measures for the stabilisation of prices in relation to wage levels are inseparable from any scheme for ensuring employment for the people, which, as stated in the Gracious Speech, is amongst the primary aims of His Majesty's Government in the transitional period. Plans are being elaborated and my Noble Friend, the Minister of Reconstruction, regards their examination as one of the first tasks demanding his attention. The extent to which it may be practicable and necessary to adopt such plans, or any part of them, before the end of the war in supplementation of war-time measures of stabilisation can best be considered when the plans are finally completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COS AND LEROS (BRITISH CASUALTIES)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of British casualties, including prisoners, suffered as a result of Cos and Leros?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): It would not be in the public interest for me to add anything at present to the information, given by the military authorities in the Middle East, which appeared in yesterday's Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY AND AIR FORCE LIBRARIES (HANSARD)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1,190 permanent libraries controlled by the Army Council for the use of the Army and R.A.F. are now supplied with copies of Hansard?

Sir J. Grigg: None, Sir.

Commander King-Hall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the proceedings of this House should be available in Army libraries?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know about Army libraries, but we are making them available in Commands in some of the larger Army study centres.

Commander King-Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have made no progress since I last raised this issue, and is he going to remain completely static in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Troops, Middle East (Books and Periodicals)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that troops in the Middle East now have adequate supplies of books, magazines and newspapers?

Sir J. Grigg: The supply of books, magazines, and newspapers for these troops is now, generally speaking, satisfactory, subject to the dissatisfaction expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend who asked the last Question, but I should perhaps remind my hon. Friend that the difficulties of distributing these supplies once they reach the command are in some cases very great and individual units may still be rather short. All possible steps are being taken to overcome these difficulties.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant

Gentleman who has just asked a Question is not the only Member who is dissatisfied, because the British United Press correspondent has written describing the shortage?

Sir J. Grigg: I still maintain that, generally speaking, my answer is correct.

Officers (Religious Talks to Troops)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War, to what extent talks on religion are now being given to troops by officers other than the chaplain of their respective denominations?

Sir J. Grigg: To the extent suggested in the notes for instructors contained in "The British Way and Purpose" No. 12, of which there is a copy in the Library of this House. It completes the series of talks on "the Responsible Citizen."

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these talks have been in many cases distasteful both to the troops and to the officers who have had to give them?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not accept that in the slightest degree. In fact, the testimony is the exact reverse.

United States Forces (British Liaison Officers)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War, the qualifications of the officers selected for liaison duties with the American forces; and whether he will give special consideration in their selection to those qualities of human understanding and good fellowship, apart from military ability, which are most likely to build up friendship between the forces of the two countries?

Sir J. Grigg: A liaison officer must in general be willing and able to give all possible personal help to the forces to which he is attached, and it is recognised that officers selected to hold these appointments should possess the qualities mentioned by my hon. Friend in the last part of his Question.

Home Guard

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is, aware of the hardship being caused among members of the Home Guard, especially those working long hours and in the heavy


industries; and whether he will consider issuing instructions with a view to a relaxation of duties and less frequent attendances at parades and exercises?

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 11th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing).

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the unrest in the coalfields because of the too frequent attendance at parades and exercises, and will he reconsider the matter in the light of that? Also has he seen the comments of the Coal Controller in to-day's papers in the North Midland Region on the subject?

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member refers. I have just had a full report on it, which I am studying. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I think that was covered by what the Prime Minister said in his answer.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Naylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make concerning the result, of his inquiries into the circumstances which caused a number of officers in a certain battalion of the Home Guard to tender their resignations?

Sir J. Grigg: The Commander of this battalion resigned on 2nd October. His successor was unfortunately wounded in an air raid a few days after he had assumed command and has been unable to go into the difficulties which had arisen in the unit. This has now been done by higher military authorities and I am glad to say that all the officers, have withdrawn their resignations although one has only done so verbally. The one warrant officer and 17 non-commissioned officers who asked to be reverted to the ranks have withdrawn their request.

Troops, Italy (Beer)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the small quantity of beer provided for the troops in Italy; and whether he will see that N.A.A.F.I. improve the supply?

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware that the supply of beer for the troops in Italy is very limited. The difficulties in the way of increasing the supply to an appreciable extent are very great, but efforts are being made.

Sir L. Lyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable time after the Salerno landing there was only one bottle for every four men? Is he not aware that beer is very necessary for troops undergoing such conditions?

Sir J. Grigg: I am quite aware that after an opposed landing, such as Salerno, quite a number of things are in short supply for some time, and not only beer.

Quartering Commandants (Pay)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many quartering commandants have been accorded the rank of lieutenant-colonel and been instructed to wear command signs whilst they are paid as regimental majors; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure that, after 21 days, pay follows the grant of rank and that quartering commandants and assistant quartering commandants receive the staff pay of their rank?

Sir J. Grigg: Sixty-eight quartering commandants have been accorded the local rank of lieutenant-colonel. This rank is given to confer additional status on them in dealing with civil authorities and other bodies. It is not given because they have greater responsibilities than majors, and they therefore continue to be paid as majors. This question and the question of granting them staff pay have been exhaustively examined, and I am advised that the duties and responsibilities of these officers, whether considered in themselves or in comparison with other officers, do not justify a departure from the present rules.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that officers of the Claims Commission with similar responsibilities are better treated as regards rank and staff pay and will he try to get similarity of treatment between the two branches of the staff?

Sir J. Grigg: That is what I always try to do. The War Establishment Committee exists to secure parity of treatment.

Welfare Wireless Sets, North Africa

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a certain unit serving in North Africa, the identity of which he has been informed, has only one wireless set among 800 men; and whether he will take the necessary steps to increase the allocation of welfare wireless sets to troops on active service, so that every sub-unit of 100 men may have a wireless set?

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the general question of the supply of wireless sets, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) on 12th October. Inquiries are now being made into the position in this particular unit.

King's Badge

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that any man of good conduct discharged from the fighting services, no matter what the cause or his length of service, shall be given the King's Discharge Badge?

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on 22nd September.

Sir A. Knox: What possible reason can there be for refusing to give the King's Badge to every man?

Sir J. Grigg: That seems to be an appropriate question to ask in the course of the Debate to which the Prime Minister referred in his answer.

Eighth Army (Cigarettes)

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary of State for War what complaints he has received regarding the poor quality of the V brand of cigarettes issued to the Eighth Army; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir J. Grigg: In the past cigarettes for the Eighth Army had of necessity to come from India, but I hope it will be possible before long to supply them with English cigarettes.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these cigarettes cannot be described in Parliamentary language, and will he take steps to see that in future

the soldiers are supplied with cigarettes of good quality?

Sir J. Grigg: I have answered the second part of the supplementary. As regards the first part, I am given to understand that the Eighth Army have had the cigarettes for a long time, and their discontent at what they were missing only became manifest when they had a small consignment of English cigarettes.

Sir William Davison: Would it not be possible for the Government to purchase from Canada some of the marvellous "Sweet Caporal" cigarettes which are supplied to the Canadian Forces?

Mr. Bartle Bull: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for two or three years these V brand of cigarettes have been called "Spitfires" and that the soldiers do not wish to see or hear any more of them?

Male Orderlies (A.T.S. Wards)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take the necessary steps to see that men are not employed as nursing orderlies in A.T.S. wards of military hospitals?

Sir J. Grigg: Men are not employed for nursing in A.T.S. wards of military hospitals, but since R.A.M.C. orderlies are sometimes used to carry coal and to do other such hard manual work in the hospital they may also have to do this in the A.T.S. ward.

Mr. Colegate: Is not the Secretary of State aware that I have given him full particulars of a man who was ordered to act as a nursing orderly and was punished for not obeying the order? It was not a question of carrying coal.

Sir J. Grigg: My present information conflicts with that, but I am going more fully into the matter and I will deal with that particular case.

Overseas Personnel (Hospital Patients' Repatriation)

Mr. Summers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction resulting from the failure to bring home those who have been in hospital in the Middle East or South Africa for many months; and whether he has any statement to make on this question?

Sir J. Grigg: At one time all hospital ships had to be routed via the Cape, and owing to the shortage of shipping the return of hospital patients to this country was delayed. I am glad to say that the position has now improved, and the patients for the United Kingdom still in South Africa should leave shortly.

Auxiliary Territorial Service

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view of improving conditions under which A.T.S., especially telephonists, work in underground offices of the War Office departments; and is he satisfied that their health is not suffering from insufficient time for exercise and sleep?

Sir J. Grigg: It is necessary for A.T.S. auxiliaries to work in these underground offices but particular attention has been devoted to the conditions under which they do their important work. These conditions have been considerably improved in the course of the last year or so and I am glad to say that the health of these auxiliaries has proved to be better than the average for the A.T.S. generally. Further measures of improvement are now in hand.

Sir W. Davison: Cannot the ventilation of these underground offices be improved?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that it has been very materially improved. I know that before the offices were occupied considerable tests by medical officers were undertaken.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases there is not sufficient time for them to take exercise in the eight-hour period which is supposed to be available for sleeping and that much of the time is taken up in going to their billets?

Sir J. Grigg: The question of giving them more time off is one of the measures of improvement now in hand.

Ex-Miner (Application for Discharge)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lance-Corporal J. W. Westhorpe, D/3879, 4th Company, C M.P., T.C., age 41, grade BX2, applied recently for his discharge from His Majesty's Forces

to return to the mining industry, where he had been employed for 15 years; that, in spite of the intervention of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the man's application was refused and, in view of the need for greater coal production, what are the qualifications for the success of such an application?

Sir J. Grigg: The general conditions governing the release of miners from the Army were announced by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) on 19th October. It was then explained that certain categories of men would be barred from release for military reasons. This man falls within the excluded categories.

Mr. Davies: How is it that one Department of State is crying for the return of ex-miners from the Army and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is doing its best to prevent them coming out? How is it that it is as difficult for an ex-miner to get out of the Forces to work in the mine as it is for the proverbial camel to go through the eye of a needle?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member wishes to suggest that the War Office are not doing all they can, consistently with military necessity, to assist the needs of the coalmines, I suggest he should ask my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and see what answer he gets.

Mr. Davies: I have been in negotiation with the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and they blame the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. Grigg: I should be very surprised if that were so, because the testimony given to me is exactly the contrary.

Mr. Bowles: On what principle was it laid down that men except those in the Pioneer Corps should have to be over 36 before they could be released from the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: These men have been trained for the Army. They may at any time now have to undertake definite military operations, and the principle which was laid down was that there should be no prejudice to these military operations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Linstead: asked the Secretary of State for War Whether a second-lieutenant who is promoted lieutenant while a prisoner of war is able to draw from the German authorities an increased allowance proportionate to his increase in pay; and, if not, whether representations can be made to enable this to be done?

Sir J. Grigg: Promotions of officer prisoners of war are notified to the German Government who recognise such promotions and adjust pay accordingly.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider making a Minister exclusively responsible for the welfare of our prisoners of war still in enemy hands?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend's suggestion has been considered on a number of occasions. I have no reason to believe that anything would be gained by it.

Mr. Bowles: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of anxiety in the country among the families of prisoners of war, particularly of those in Japanese hands, whether the Ministers at present concerned, those of the War Office and the Foreign Office and the Minister of state, deal with the matter in a way that results in its being dealt with piecemeal, and that, so far as Japanese prisoners are concerned, very little success seems to have been attained?

Mr. Attlee: I hope that my hon. Friend will disabuse anxious relatives of any idea that the matter is being dealt with piece-meal. I am sure that he will realise the great difficulty in dealing with people like the Japanese.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War the sentences to which Ordinary Signalman D. J. Kitson, R. N., and other naval ratings and merchant seamen prisoners of war in Germany were sentenced for attempted escape in 1941; whether these men are in solitary confinement and not allowed to receive parcels; and whether he can ask the Protecting Power to visit their camps and report?

Sir J. Grigg: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Knox: Is it true that these men do not get any parcels from home now?

Sir J. Grigg: I will be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer as a whole and if he wishes to put down other Questions.

Following is the answer:

A prisoner of war is subject to the laws and regulations in force in the Armed Forces of the detaining Power and the prisoners of war concerned in this case were charged not with an attempt to escape but with arson and mutiny as a result of an attempt to seize and set fire to the ship in which they were being conveyed to Germany. The merchant seaman who was alleged to be the ring-leader was sentenced to death. Ordinary Signalman Kitson was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. Five other merchant seamen and naval ratings were sentenced to varying terms of penal servitude and the remaining 23 to terms of imprisonment ranging from three to eight months.

Representations were made to the German Government against the sentence of death and the long sentences of penal servitude. It was pointed out that the motive for the men's action was to liberate themselves from captivity, to inflict losses on the enemy and to benefit their own country and that the punishment should not be assessed according to the standard which would have applied if the alleged offences had been committed by German subjects. The Protecting Power have been informed that the sentence of death will not be carried out but no formal decision has been notified by the Germans as to the sentence which has been substituted. This prisoner is in a cell by himself; he was given the chance of sharing a cell but preferred to remain alone.

No reply has been received to the representations on the other sentences, although reminders have been sent. All the men have been visited by the representative of the Protecting Power. The men undergoing sentences of penal servitude are not in solitary confinement and the treatment is, on the whole, satisfactory, although some are suffering from loss of weight owing to prison diet. Whilst serving their sentences these men are subject to prison regulations, and it


is understood that these do not permit the receipt of parcels. The Protecting Power have been asked to visit these men at regular intervals and report on their treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, INDIA AND FAR EAST (MAIL CENSORSHIP)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the anxiety existing among the friends of officers and men serving in His Majesty's Forces in India and the Far East owing to the holding up of the mails at the Censorship Departments; and whether he will take steps to see that all letters are censored and forwarded at once to their destinations?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware that undue delays to military mails are caused by censorship, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars which support his contention, I shall be pleased to have the matter investigated.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend peruse a communication from one of my constituents and act quickly so as to relieve the anxiety amongst people in this country?

Sir J. Grigg: That is precisely what I asked my hon. Friend to give me.

Captain Thorneycroft: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has already had some particulars from me in this respect?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Food Preservation

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the working of small refrigerating, canning and dehydrating plants recently developed in the United States of America with a view to ascertaining if similar plants would be suitable for installation on the West Coast of Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The Scottish Council on Industry have set up a Committee to consider the possibilities for the development in Scotland of canning, dehydration, freezing and similar methods of food preservation. This Committee will be examining the type of development mentioned in the Question, and among other

evidence a report is being got from Newfoundland. I shall be glad to pass to the Committee any information on the subject of which my hon. and gallant Friend is in possession.

Major McCallum: If and when such development is possible, will my right hon. Friend give consideration, among other places, to the fishing port of Carradale for the establishment of one of these plants?

Mr. Johnston: All these considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. friend aware that there is a big freezing factory for fish at Yarmouth, and would he advise the Committee to investigate the possibility of that process as well as of the Canadian and American processes?

Mr. Johnston: We are examining all the evidence available.

Gaelic (Instruction in Primary Schools)

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils in primary schools in Gaelic-speaking areas of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are taught Gaelic under the provisions of the 1918 Act?

Mr. Johnston: The latest statistics available show that in session 1938–39 4,259 pupils in primary schools in Gaelic-speaking areas of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland received instruction in Gaelic.

Major McCallum: Is it the policy of the Scottish Office to introduce compulsion for the teaching of Gaelic in the schools of these Gaelic-speaking areas?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, not as at present advised.

Hill Sheep Subsidy

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce the scale of payments to be made under the Hill Sheep Subsidy Scheme in respect of the current year?

Mr. Johnston: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I have this matter under examination. I hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date.

Major McCallum: When examining this question will my right hon Friend


bear in mind the further losses sustained by hill sheep farmers owing to the new regulations regarding transport of sheep stocks from the farms to markets?

Mr. Johnston: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all relevant considerations are borne in mind in the discussions which take place between us and the Treasury.

Development (Forth-Clyde Canal)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in consultation with the Minister of Reconstruction on the subject of the proposed Forth-Clyde canal and similar schemes of national development in Scotland after the war?

Mr. Johnston: I am in consultation with the Minister of War Transport on the subject referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, and with the Minister of Reconstruction in regard to Scottish reconstruction questions generally.

Mr. Boothby: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects anything to emerge from the consultations?

Mr. Johnston: The Minister of War Transport, who sits in another place, has set up a small group to examine this question departmentally, and obviously it will be done as speedily as possible.

Educational Reconstruction (White Paper)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to announce the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Scottish education; and whether he will issue a White Paper on the subject?

Mr. Johnston: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to his Questions of 12th and 19th October on these subjects, to which at present I am unable to add.

Mr. Boothby: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the event of the English legislation being passed this Session the Scottish legislation on education will also be passed before the end of this Session?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir.

Housing

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is preparing

plans to deal with the serious housing shortage which will exist in Scotland after the war; and whether these plans include the establishment, with adequate powers, of a Scottish National Housing Corporation?

Mr. Johnston: Comprehensive plans are being made to meet our grave housing problem. The plans include measures for the necessary expansion of the building industry, for the acquisition of sites, for alternative methods of building, and for the provision of emergency housing accommodation. As regards the second part of the Question, we already have a national housing building agency in Scotland—the Scottish Special Housing Association. This association is a non-profit-making body which supplements the operations of the local authorities. The association can provide houses in any part of Scotland and I am at present planning for a large-scale programme of building by the association after the war.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the possibility of extending the statutory powers of this association if that should prove to be desirable?

Mr. Johnston: Certainly, but I have heard no suggestion that its statutory powers are unnecessarily limited at the moment.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the committee appointed by him to advise on housing has now completed its work?

Mr. Johnston: The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee was reconstituted in August, 1942, and was asked to report on the design and layout of houses, on the provision of furniture by local authorities for their houses and on the measures required to secure the most appropriate distribution of houses in the immediate post-war years. I have just received the Committee's Report on the first two of these inquiries. The Report on the distribution of houses should be completed by the spring of next year.

Mr. McNeil: Will a section of this Report, which I assume is to be published, although the right hon. Gentleman does not say so, deal with the immediate requirements of Scottish housing?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new pulmonary tuberculosis cases notified between 1st June, 1943, and 1st November, 1943; and the numbers for the comparable periods in 1942, 1941 and 1940?

Mr. Johnston: Notifications between 1st June and 1st November, 1943, were 3,073. The corresponding figure for the same period in 1942 was 2,633, in 1941 2,361, in 1940 2,118.

Mr. McNeil: Will my right hon. Friend now agree, from the figures he has supplied, that his scheme for dealing with tuberculosis by excluding chronic sufferers has obviously failed to restrict the spread of infection in the country?

Mr. Johnston: The two things have no necessary connection whatever.

Mr. McNeil: Will my right hon. Friend tell me to what he attributes the increase, since he thinks he has cut out an area of infection?

Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend asked for statistics going back to 1940. The scheme to which he alludes now is another matter altogether. It is dealing entirely with war-time temporary conditions.

Infant Mortality

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the rate of infant mortality among the poorer classes has, according to recent medical-statistics, been since the last war the highest in the civilised world; and what steps he is taking to remove this disgrace from the social life of the country?

Mr. Johnston: According to the latest information available to me, the Scottish figures, bad as they are, are not the highest even among the nations of Western Europe. The causes of the variations in these infant mortality figures are not always apparent, but a Report on the subject by a Committee under Sir John Orr's chairmanship, set up at my request by the Scottish Scientific Advisory Committee in June, 1942, will shortly be published.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very serious character of the situation in Glasgow and throughout Scotland as a whole, and the difficulty that is being experienced in dealing with the growth of infant mortality and disease generally,

will the Minister not consider calling a meeting of Scottish Members and representatives of the local authorities to discuss this very serious question of health?

Mr. Johnston: That is one of the considerations to which I have been giving attention, but it is obvious, as the hon. Member will find when he reads the Orr Report, that there are many causes contributing to these alarming figures.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Question is accurate so far as it relates to children under one month old?

Mr. Johnston: I could not say that without notice. That is not the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the child death rate in Glasgow is higher than it is in Tokyo; and what immediate plans he has for the rehousing and rehabilitation of the workers in the Glasgow area in order to save the lives of the children on whose survival the prosperity of Scotland depends?

Mr. Johnston: Figures for 1936 relating to the cities of Glasgow and Tokyo are to the effect stated. But the official statistics published by the League of Nations show that, for the five year period 1934–38, the infant mortality rate for the whole of Japan was half as high again as for Scotland. As for the second parts of the Question, bad housing is not the sole cause of a high infant mortality. Regarding the immediate provision of more housing beyond that already under construction, I am afraid I can add nothing to the explanation given to my hon. Friend on 11th November by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from that reply, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland does not deny the statement made in the "British Medical Journal" that the death-rate among children in Glasgow is worse than in Tokyo, may I ask what steps he is going to take to remove this terrible and disgraceful situation in the West of Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: As I have already indicated, the figures for one year are as stated in the Question, but over five years the figures for Tokyo are 50 per cent. worse than in Glasgow. The steps we are taking to deal with this matter are,


first, to find out what are the deficiencies in the way of homes, housing and so on—to find out what were the causes of it. The Orr Committee was set up for this purpose, and the Report is now in hand and I expect it will be published.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question, again, is accurate if it relates to children under a month old? I believe that is what the "British Medical Journal" referred to. Is he aware that the admission he has made is a reflection on the public health services of the whole country?

Mr. Johnston: I do not admit that at all. I have said that the figures are those which the League of Nations have supplied, and I have said that over a five years' period the Tokyo figures are 50 per cent. worse.

Mr. McNeil: Does the right hon. Gentleman take consolation from that fact?

Mr. Johnston: No, I take no consolation from it. That is a quite unworthy Supplementary Question. I am doing my best to give an accurrate statement of the facts.

Miss Rathbone: Is this Question likely to be helpful to Japanese propagandists, who may take note of the form of the Question rather than of the substance of the reply?

Mr. Gallacher: Does the fact that in one year, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, the rate was higher in Glasgow than in Tokyo mean that in Tokyo they had taken measures to reduce the death-rate, or that the Glasgow authorities had failed to stop a great increase in the death rate?

Mr. Johnston: I have no information of what happened in Tokyo. The figures were supplied by the League of Nations, and I have given them.

Mr. Kirkwood: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move heaven and earth to remove this evil from the West of Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: We are already taking every possible step within our power.

Agriculture (Double Summer Time)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations

have been made by the National Farmers' Union (Scottish Branch) on the question of double summer time; and will he represent to the appropriate Government Department the views of the agricultural community in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I recently received a deputation from the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland at which there took place a full discussion of the disadvantages of double summer time to the various branches of agriculture. The Government appreciate the difficulties, and they will be fully taken into account before next summer.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not now time that more consideration was given to agriculture in this question?

Mr. Johnston: That question is obviously already answered in the answer I have just given.

British Empire (School Lectures)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any measure of priority is given in Scottish schools to lantern or film lectures on the British Empire over similar lectures on foreign countries; and whether he is satisfied with the present situation in this regard?

Mr. Johnston: The main source of film supply for most Scottish schools is the Scottish Central Film Library. I am informed that in this library, which last year distributed over 40,000 reels, films on the British Empire greatly outnumber films on other countries, and that these Empire films are in constant demand. Another widely used source is the film library of the Imperial Institute which deals exclusively with Empire subjects.

Kelvin Valley Drainage

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the loss sustained by the destruction of crops in Dumbartonshire due to flooding of areas contiguous to the River Kelvin; and whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Kelvin Valley Drainage Scheme is put into operation at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Johnston: There was considerable flooding in the Kelvin Valley early last month caused by the heaviest rainfall that has yet been recorded in the catchment area. This resulted in damage to agricultural crops, but fortunately most


of the harvest had been ingathered. The River Kelvin drainage scheme works, as originally designed, have practically been completed. I called for and have now received a full report on the flooding, and I am in communication with the National Farmers' Union with a view to local consultations on the whole matter.

Rosneath Estate (Timber)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the purchasers of Rosneath Estate sold all the growing timber; that the timber in question is being removed; and what steps is he prepared to take to have the cleared areas replanted?

Mr. Johnston: Yes Sir, I am informed that the Home Timber Production Department of the Ministry of Supply issued licences to fell timber on Rosneath Estate in November, 1941. I understand that the post-war plans of the Forestry Commission envisage the planting of cleared woodland areas in private ownership, and I have drawn their attention to the position on this estate.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Minister aware that the people who purchased this estate have taken everything out and put nothing in, that they removed the drainage tiles from the estate and that the agricultural land suffered accordingly? Is there no protection against this kind of thing?

Mr. Johnston: The precise Question on the Order Paper deals with forests, and, as I have indicated, I have drawn the attention of the Forestry Commission to the position on this estate.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to enable the House to give careful consideration to the large number of legislative measures anticipated in the present Session, he will give an assurance that he will revert to the pre-war practice of allowing Bills to stand committed to Standing Committees?

Mr. Attlee: I can at present add nothing to what I said on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Address on Wednesday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (DUTIES)

Mr. Molson: asked the Prime Minister in what way the duties of the Minister without Portfolio to assist the Minister of Reconstruction differ from those of an Under-Secretary or Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Attlee: As a Minister of Cabinet rank, the Minister without Portfolio will be in a position to give to the Minister of Reconstruction a greater measure of assistance than that which a Parliamentary Secretary can give to a Departmental Minister. There is nothing new in the arrangement whereby one Minister of Cabinet rank assists another. At the present time, for example, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the assistance of the Minister of State.

Sir L. Lyle: Has not the Minister previously stated in the House that he was the Minister who tried stimulating other Ministers?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers will be specially concerned with the preparation of the Government's proposals regarding an enlarged and unified system of social insurance, a comprehensive health service and a new scheme of workmen's compensation, respectively; and whether any particular member, or members, of the War Cabinet will specially review this work?

Mr. Attlee: The Ministers specially concerned with these matters are my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Home Secretary. The Government's proposals for social security are being formulated under the direction of a Committee of Ministers; and the Minister without Portfolio has, and will continue to have, a special responsibility for co-ordinating the work involved in presenting the social insurance scheme as a whole to that Committee. As regards the last part of the Question, these are, of course, matters falling within the scope of my noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Health and Unemployment Insurance (Stamp Contributions)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the machinery now existing for the collection of tax contributions by pay-as-you-earn, he is considering the possibility of abolishing the poll-tax method of stamp contributions for the health and unemployment insurance services and avoid triplicate deductions from weekly and other wages?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): If I understand my hon. Friend's proposal aright, it is that provision for ill-health and unemployment should no longer by made by contributory insurance schemes, but that payments in respect of such contingencies should be made at the expense of the general taxpayer. The Beveridge plan is based on the view that "benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people of Britain desire." The Government share this view, and have accepted the recommendation that provision for such contingencies should be made by continuing and extending the system of contributory insurance.

Mr. Woodburn: Since only about a fifth of the insurance services are in the form of contributions and the rest are paid by the same people in taxation, and in the case of the Beveridge scheme only half is allowed for in contributions and the other half would have to be raised from the same people by taxation, may I ask the Chancellor whether some method of co-ordinating all this taxation could not be adopted to save duplicating and triplicating the collection of money from the population?

Sir J. Anderson: We follow the well-tried and sound practice of keeping taxation and expenditure separate.

Income Tax (Pay-as-you-earn Scheme)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered further schemes for simplifying the work of deducting pay-as-you-earn tax; and whether any decisions have been reached?

Sir J. Anderson: Subject to a recasting of the Tax Tables to ensure greater

accuracy in the weekly deductions, the scheme for deduction of tax under the Income Tax (Employments) Act will be that explained in the White Paper and will be set forth in the Regulations to be made under the Act. Alternative methods of deduction which were referred to in the course of the Parliamentary Debates on the pay-as-you-earn proposals have been found on examination not to lead to any simplification and have been rejected after consultation with representatives of employers and employees.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether visiting seasonal Irish workers are included in the pay-as-you-earn scheme for the payment of Income Tax?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943, deduction of Income Tax from wages will be a statutory duty of all employers and will therefore apply to wages paid to all workers in this country. The ultimate tax liability, if any, of an Irish worker depends upon a number of factors, including the length of stay in this country, which can only be ascertained at the end of the year, i.e., after the deductions have taken place. If any tax is deducted from a person who is not liable to United Kingdom Income Tax by reason of the Double Taxation Agreement existing between Eire and the United Kingdom, repayment would be made at the end of the year.

Mr. Kirkwood: The men are referred to here as being only seasonal workers. Does the payment of Income Tax apply to them?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, it applies to all.

Departmental Property (Records)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an inventory exists of all property secured by His Majesty's Government since the outbreak of war; and, if so, whether each Department retains its own, or whether a complete inventory is held by the Treasury?

Sir J. Anderson: It is the responsibility of each Department to maintain records of assets belonging to it, and there is no central inventory kept in the Treasury, for the reasons explained in the appendix to the Sixteenth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure.


The recommendations on the subject contained in that Report are now under consideration.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is the responsibility of each Department to keep an inventory; what I want to know from him is, is he satisfied that every Department knows what it owns?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point, does the Chancellor think it is satisfactory that such huge sums of money should be allocated to spending in the Departments, without any central control being exercised by the Chancellor himself?

Sir J. Anderson: That is an assumption for which there is no foundation at all.

War-Damaged Houses (Building Society Mortgages)

Mr. McEntee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficult position of owners of dwelling-houses when their property is completely destroyed by enemy action, owing to the continuing liability for repayments under mortgages granted by building societies; and will he take steps to relieve such owners from their responsibilities to continue to pay interest as payments envisaged by the War Damage Act, 1943, give full security to the building society for the money lent and the owner has the added expense of providing other accommodation for his family, or will he make arrangements for the War Damage Commission to pay the money owing on the claims and thus enable the owners to pay off the mortgage?

Sir J. Anderson: As my predecessor informed the House, he received assurances on behalf of building societies that they would extend the most sympathetic treatment possible to borrowers whose property has suffered war damage and that they would not ask the borrowers to pay more on account of their debt than was in the circumstances clearly within their resources. Moreover mortgagors who are unable to meet their liabilities in respect of war-damaged houses receive a measure of protection under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts and the Liabilities (Wartime Adjustment) Act. I should not feel justified in introducing legislation to give automatic relief to all mortgagors at

the expense of their creditors. In answer to the last part of the Question I would point out that the fact that a dwelling house is completely destroyed by no means necessarily implies that it will not be qualified for a cost-of-works payment. I should not feel justified in anticipating the general release of value payments in this particular class of case, but I would refer the hon. Member to Section 22 (2) of the War Damage Act, 1943, which provides for the making of payments to persons in need of funds to secure alternative housing accommodation.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not very difficult for these people to get any concession from the building societies? Is it not true that they are more hard hit than any other section of the people who have had property destroyed, because they have to provide a new home for themselves, very often at an excessive rent? Could not the right hon. Gentleman make some concession to them?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no obvious reason why it should be made easier for people who have purchased houses with other people's money than for those who have purchased houses with their own money. So far as building societies are concerned, if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case which has led to his Question, I will try to look into the matter.

Sir W. Davison: When is the Memorandum which was adumbrated in the Press that, although their houses were totally destroyed, the owners might yet be eligible for a cost-of-works payment, likely to be published?

Sir J. Anderson: That has been published.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the assurances given on behalf of the building societies cover the whole of the building societies?

Sir J. Anderson: I will look into the point.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is not the Minister aware that the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act is no remedy at all because people do not go to these courts unless they are absolutely on their beam ends? Is this not very hard lines on mortgagors, and will he bear this matter in mind?

Sir J. Anderson: I have the point in mind.

National Savings Certificates

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the number of people of all classes who have now acquired National Savings Certificates to the nominal value of £500, and in order to encourage a continuation of this form of saving, he will now raise the limit of such investments to the nominal value of £750 or £1,000?

Sir J. Anderson: Statistical inquiries have shown that the number of holders of the permitted maximum is a small proportion of the total number of holders of Certificates. But holders of the maximum of 500 units of the seventh and previous issues can continue to save in the form of Certificates by the purchase of up to 250 units of the Certificate of the £1 issue. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a limit must be fixed to holdings of a security which carries a favourable rate of interest free of tax. Given the alternative forms of investment available, I do not consider that the present limits hamper saving by the small investor.

Financial Discussions, Washington (Lord Keynes' Report)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have yet received a Report by Lord Keynes on the recent financial negotiations in Washington; and whether this Report will be published?

Sir J. Anderson: Reports upon these discussions have been received and are under consideration. As already indicated, the Government will in due course submit their conclusions to Parliament; but, in accordance with the usual practice where submissions by the Government's technical advisers are concerned, the reports themselves will not be published.

Mr. Boothby: Would the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the question of whether these conclusions will be submitted in the form of a statement to the House or in the form of a written document? In reply to a Question the other day he said that he would consider issuing them in writing.

Sir J. Anderson: I will later on. I shall endeavour to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the categorical assurance by his predecessor that no undertaking of any kind will be given to a return to gold in any form without first consulting the House?

Sir J. Anderson: I have repeated those assurances myself.

Mr. Hammersley: Do we understand that we shall not be faced with definite conclusions but that the matter will come forward in a way in which the opinion of the House can be taken?

Sir J. Anderson: The House will not be faced with commitments. I hope that the conclusions which will be put to the House will be as definite as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: If conclusions are to be submitted to the House are not Members entitled to have the information and the facts before them on which these conclusions are based?

Sir J. Anderson: I will endeavour to see that the House has full information.

Tax Reserve Certificates (Bank Advances)

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is in accordance with the policy of the Government that banks should be asked to make advances for the purpose of subscriptions to Tax Reserve Certificates?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. As my predecessor stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) on 19th February, 1942, it is entirely contrary to the wishes of the Government that subscriptions to Tax Reserve Certificates should be financed by borrowed money. The main purpose of the Certificates is to help taxpayers who have material sums to meet by direct payment to set aside those sums as their profits or incomes accrue and are available in cash.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor whether in fact by borrowing money for this purpose from the banks the banks do not themselves thereby earn more interest, and therefore as they then pay it away in Excess Profits Tax the Exchequer benefits? Is it not all humbug?

Civil Service Pensions

Mr. William Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount per annum of the present non-effective


Vote of the Civil Service; and by how much this amount would be increased if pensions were adjusted to present cost of living?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that what my hon. Friend wishes to know is the total amount provided in this year's Estimates for Civil Service pensions, disregarding non-recurrent payments and injury grants. On this basis the answer to the first part of his Question is approximately £8,500,000. If for the sake of convenience the increase in the cost of living since the war is taken as 30 per cent., a corresponding increase of these pensions would cost about £2,500,000 per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now announce the names of the persons forming the technical body which he is appointing to consider the Severn Barrage Scheme proposals, including the conclusions of the Brabazon Committee; and the terms of reference?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I have invited three eminent engineers, whose names I hope to be able to announce shortly, to form a technical body with the following terms of reference:
To review the conclusions of the Severn Barrage Committee in the light of later engineering experience and practice and of other developments and to suggest what modifications, if any, should be made in the proposed scheme, in the programme for its execution and in the estimates of its cost.

Mr. Kirby: When is this body likely to start work?

Major Lloyd George: I am hoping to get acceptances in a day or two, and they will start work immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Shifts Worked

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give for the country as a whole and for each district separately the number of shifts worked per wage-earner per week in October, 1943, and in the priod 1st January to 31st October, 1943?

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:


Average Number of Shifts worked per Wage-earner per Week in the Coalmining Industry.


District
4 weeks ended 30th October 1943
January-October 1943


Scotland
5.72
5.57


Northumberland
5.37
5.14


Durham
5.43
5.23


South Wales &amp; Mon.
5.22
5.05


Yorkshire
5.19
4.99


North Derbyshire
5.31
5.16


Nottinghamshire
5.17
4.98


South Derbyshire
5.64
5.61


Leicestershire
5.50
5.35


Cannock Chose
5.32
5.15


Warwickshire
5.09
4.92


Lancs, and Cheshire
5.39
5.18


North Staffs.
4.97
4.88


Cumberland
5.52
5.32


North Wales
5.35
5.16


South Staffs.
5.32
5.16


Shropshire
5.18
5.03


Bristol
5.55
5.34


Forest of Dean
5.24
5.04


Somerset
5.54
5.34


Kent
4.92
4.80


Great Britain
5.33
5.15

Railway Wagons (Shortage)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what complaints he has received of coal production being delayed by shortage of railway wagons; and what percentage of the total pool of railway wagons are held up in repair yards for elaborate repairs?

Major Lloyd George: I have been kept fully informed of the losses of coal production which have, unfortunately, occurred through shortage of railway wagons, chiefly in the North East and North Midland Regions. Up to the week ended 20th November some 66,000 tons had been lost from this cause and wagon shortages have also been experienced at opencast workings. I am in the closest touch with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport on this matter. As regards the second part of the Question, I am informed that, according to the latest available figures, 5.37 per cent. of the total pool of railway-owned and privately-owned requisitioned wagons were under and awaiting repairs at the end of last


month. The types of repairs required vary so much that it is not practicable to give separate figures for elaborate repairs.

Mr. Walkden: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that very informative reply, could I ask him to give great consideration to allegations which have been made by the managing director of a big coal combine in South Lancashire concerning the shortage of wagons and the causes, and also expert advice which has been sent to his Parliamentary Secretary on this very important issue? Will he go into the whole subject along with the Minister of War Transport?

Disputes (Work Stoppages)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many stoppages of work have occurred in the coal industry since 1st July, 1943, without prior recourse to the conciliation machinery established on the recommendation of Lord Greene's Board of Investigation; how many workers were involved; and what is the estimated loss of tonnage resulting from the stoppages?

Major Lloyd George: The recommendations of Lord Greene's Board of Investigation for the establishment of machinery to deal with disputes in the districts laid down the procedure by which the machinery should be set up. It is laid down that until that procedure, which is now well advanced, is completed, disputes should be dealt with by the machinery existing in the district prior to the report of Lord Green's Board. Between the week ended 3rd July and the week ended 13th November, 1943, there were reported to my Ministry 421 stoppages due to disputes. The aggregate loss of output from all stoppages during that period is estimated at 562,000 tons. All of these stoppages were unofficial and took place against the advice of the Mineworkers' Union.

Mr. Colegate: Is the Minister satisfied that his own officials are making adequate use of constitutional trade union machinery? In that connection is he aware that in a recent strike in the Lancashire coalfield the Regional Controller proposed a method of dealing with it which was very much criticised, and eventually responsible officials of the Miners' Federation took the matter in their own hands

and in spite—[Interruption]—Could I have an answer?

Major Lloyd George: I should not have the time to go into all the details. I am quite prepared to look into what the hon. Member has said, but obviously I cannot deal with a matter of that nature by question and answer.

Domestic Supplies (Allocation)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the approximate quantity of coal available for domestic use and the approximate number of households to which domestic coal is distributed respectively; and will he give the figures for each region separately?

Major Lloyd George: I have fully explained, in replies to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) on 9th and 23rd November, that the House Coal Allocation Programme covers not only domestic but other controlled premises under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943; and that there is no separate allocation for domestic premises. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the current approximate allocation for controlled premises in each Region. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this allocation is subject to adjustment in relation to variations in available supplies and in requirements for other purposes.

Following is the statement:


Coal Supplies to Controlled Premises.


Region.
Approximate No. of Controlled Premises.
Weekly Coal Allocation (tons)


Scotland
1,558,000
76,950


Northern
783,000
41,450


North Eastern
1,180,000
71,300


North Western
2,172,000
130,800


North Midland
985,000
56,200


Midland
1,213,000
72,200


Wales
710,000
35,900


Eastern
893,000
32,300


Southern
712,000
25,000


South Western
894,000
32,050


South Eastern
724,000
19,850


London
2,746,000
55,000


Total
14,570,000
649,000

Retail Distribution

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many coal merchants are engaged in retail distribution in each


of the places in which the Ministry of War Transport and his Ministry have introduced more drastic reorganisation schemes?

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


District.
No. of merchants.


Leeds
443


Scunthorpe
23


Nottingham
357


Romford
45


Ongar
16


Oxford
41


Forest of Dean
174


Exmouth
24


Plymouth
57


Keynsham
13


Axminster
45


Bideford
72


Barnstaple
81


Bath
105


Buckfastleigh
3


Kingsbridge
41


South Molton
70


Montgomery and Forden
39


Aled
37


Prestatyn
27


Burton-on-Trent
51


Hereford
70


Coseley
32


Whitchurch
55


Preston
187


Fylde Rural
43


Stalybridge
69

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Commodities (Restriction)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade the list of commodities as at present contemplated, the sale of which traders will be allowed to restrict to certain sections of the community under the Price Control Bill?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 2nd November during the Second Reading of this Bill, to which I have at present, nothing to add.

Agricultural Workers (Clothing)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the exceptional difficulty of farm workers in obtaining adequate working clothes on the present issue of

coupons; and whether he will arrange for the reconditioned battledress now available to farm workers to be supplied to them without coupons?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave last Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I regret that, in view of the shortage of supplies, I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Lancashire Cotton Goods (Export to Portuguese Colonies)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the British Trade Delegation to Portugal will be empowered to discuss with the Portuguese authorities the possible revival of exports of Lancashire cotton goods to the Portuguese colonies?

Mr. Dalton: There is no British trade delegation to Portugal, but the Commercial Counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy at Lisbon is, of course, constantly in touch with the Portuguese Government and commercial community on trade questions.

Mr. Hammersley: Is it not desirable that the earliest opportunity should be taken to meet the urgent requirements of the Portuguese for these goods, and should they not be supplied from this country if possible?

Mr. Dalton: As I have explained, I give preference to the home market and to the Empire. In due course we hope to do something for the Portuguese, too.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Are we to understand that the U.K.C.C. are not active in Portugal in trying to sell Lancashire textiles?

Mr. Dalton: That is not the Question on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

British Red Cross Society (Outfit Coupons)

Commander King-Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether members of the British Red Cross Society can be issued with an allowance of coupons enabling them to purchase grey stockings?

Mr. Dalton: Like other wearers of essential uniforms, members of the British


Red Cross Society receive their initial uniform outfit and any necessary replacements coupon-free, in return for the annual surrender of only six to eight coupons. They should, therefore, be well able to provide the coupons necessary for stockings.

Commander King-Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these ladies have to wear grey stockings when in uniform, and that they need at least three pairs a year? Could not a small allowance be made?

Mr. Dalton: They really do pretty well. If my hon. and gallant Friend will have a word with me I will satisfy him on that point.

Household Linen

Mr. Kendall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider arranging a separate coupon system for household linen, as family supplies after four years of war are in a ragged and depleted condition, and it is a hardship for people to have to give up clothing coupons for these necessities?

Mr. Dalton: The only essential household goods subject to coupon are towels and tea-cloths. As I have explained in answer to previous Questions on this subject, a separate household ration is out of the question, owing to the serious administrative difficulties it would involve and also to the limited supplies of rationed goods available.

Mr. Kendall: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing certificates of need on similar lines to those issued to people for utility furniture?

Mr. Dalton: I think it would be going rather far to set up a new piece of administrative machinery simply for this purpose.

Mr. William Brown: Is it not clear that the problem is particularly difficult in households which afford billets to war workers? Could not relief be given when large-scale billeting is practised?

Mr. Dalton: No housewife ought to let a billetee impose upon her. If more towels are required, the billetee ought to produce a coupon or two.

Retail Traders' Register

Sir L. Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many traders

who have withdrawn from retail trade since the war began have inscribed their names on the Register of those who may wish to reopen new shops after the war; and whether the totals are compiled by counties?

Mr. Dalton: Up to last Saturday, 12,868 applications for admission to the Register have been received. The Register is compiled by postal areas.

Mr. De la Bère: Were they mostly small traders, or were they all sorts of traders?

Mr. Dalton: The vast majority, of course, were small traders.

Mr. Simmonds: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the total number of these traders who should be registered if the Register were complete?

Mr. Dalton: It is difficult to say. We are giving full publicity to the Register, and I would welcome any information, from Members of this House or from anywhere else.

Mr. Simmonds: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that 20 per cent. are on so far?

Mr. Dalton: I would not like to guess, but the number is rising steadily.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCRAP METAL SALVAGE (NEW ARRANGEMENTS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. R. C. MORRISON:

95. To ask the Minister of Supply what action he is taking to deal with the accumulations of iron and steel municipal scrap in various areas; and whether he is satisfied that it is still necessary to continue to collect and segregate this material?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement relating to the collection and segregation of iron and steel municipal scrap referred to in Question 95 on the Order Paper to-day which has not been reached. The statement is a matter of some importance and should, believe, be communicated to the House.
The greater part of this material is destructor scrap, consisting of empty tins and discarded household utensils. This


scrap is bulky and expensive to treat and transport. Owing to the presence of tin and other impurities, it cannot be used directly for steel making but can only be used in limited quantities in blast furnaces for the manufacture of pig iron. The scrap in question has been of great use in increasing the output of iron from the furnaces, but thanks to the efforts of the public and the local authorities we have now accumulated a substantial reserve stock, and the present collection has increased to a point exceeding the capacity of the industry to consume. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend has decided that the scheme for compulsory segregation and collection of domestic ferrous scrap by local authorities shall be continued only in the case of those equipped to enable the material to be readily utilised and that it shall be discontinued in the case of other local authorities. My right hon. Friend has made arrangements, in consultation with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, whose Department acts as the agent of the Ministry of Supply for the collection of this and other classes of scrap, whereby all material already collected by local authorities and in their hands on 31st December, 1943, will be cleared and paid for under the existing arrangements as expeditiously as possible, having regard to labour and transport difficulties. New arrangements will be negotiated with the local authorities selected to continue collection.
I would like to emphasise two points. Firstly, that this does not imply any change in the demand for other types of ferrous scrap suitable for direct use in the steel furnaces. The need for this is greater than ever. Some of the abnormal sources of supply we have tapped are beginning to dry up, and this will necessitate intensified efforts in other directions. Secondly, the fact we have achieved so satisfactory a position on this one item of salvage does not reflect any lessening of the importance of salvage generally. On the contrary, one reason for diverting energy from the collection of tins is to enable greater effort to be put into other fields of salvage, where the need is still acute.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister, in communicating this decision to the local authorities and the public, add an expression of his thanks for the excellent work

that the local authorities and the public have put in in making this decision possible?

Mr. Peat: Yes, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: And will that vote of thanks cover the people who have collected the scrap?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the public be informed, either by the local authorities or by the hon. Gentleman's Department, whether in their particular case the collection will be continued or discontinued? The hon. Gentleman has said that certain local authorities will continue in the collection, and that others will not. Will the public get the information, so that they will know whether they are to save the scrap?

Mr. Peat: Yes, Sir; steps are being taken to-day to make a public announcement to this effect, and the local authorities are being asked to communicate with their people.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mander: Might I ask the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Local Elections Bill to-day, and whether ample time will be allowed for Debate on that Second Reading?

Mr. Attlee: No, it is not proposed to take it to-day.

Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, I promised to make a statement about the Amendments to the Address. To-day the general Debate on the Address will be continued. On the second Sitting Day a Debate on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley will take place. On the third Sitting Day I propose to take the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) and other hon. Members, when Dominion affairs will be discussed:
["But humbly regret that it has not yet been possible definitely to arrange for an Imperial Conference to consider the closer cohesion of the Commonwealth and Empire after the war."]
On the fourth Sitting Day I shall first call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown):
["But humbly regret that Your Majesty's Gracious Speech makes no proposal for raising the pensions of retired State servants, for


example, civil servants (Home and Colonial), officers of the armed forces, teachers, local government officers, etc., to a level corresponding with the increased cost of living"—]
and next that in the name of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby)—
["But humbly regret that Your Majesty's Government have given no indication of any specific measures to be taken in this country to deal with the world food shortages, now becoming widespread; and, in particular, of any steps to utilise fully the productive capacity of our fishing fleets, and to maintain the quality of our flocks and herds."]
As regards the subject to be debated in the next series of Sittings, I shall have to make a statement later.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask for your guidance, Sir, as regards the Debate announced for the next Sitting Day? Is it possible to say what form that will take? Is it to be regarded as part of the Debate on the Gracious Speech, or is it to be taken as a special item of Business? I ask for your guidance because it may be, within the Rules of our procedure, that, if hon. Members have spoken or wish to speak in the general Debate, they are precluded, so it appears to me, from speaking in the course of the Debate announced for the second Sitting Day. That seems to me to be improper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because—with respect, I am putting the point to you, Sir—there is nothing contained in the Gracious Speech which refers to the release of Sir Oswald Mosley. It has nothing to do with reconstruction or the Government's social reform proposals. It is something that has emerged out of the past. It arises out of a Regulation operated by the Government within powers vested in the Government by hon. Members, and therefore it would appear to me—but it is a matter for your discretion, Sir—that to preclude hon. Members from participating in the Debate on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley because they had participated in the general Debate, would be hardly fair. I would ask whether it is not possible to regard the Debate in isolation. There is a further point I would like to put to you, Sir—though I am not certain it is a matter for you; it may be a matter for the Government—as to whether it is intended to offer hon. Members facilities for dividing on that issue? If hon. Members wish to have a Division, they cannot have a

Division if the Debate takes place on the Address. It seems to me that hon. Members are to be at a disadvantage unless the Debate is regarded as a special occasion.

Sir Irving Albery: May I ask you, Sir, further to the point which has just been raised, also to consider the position of Members in this House if that Debate is taken on the next Sitting Day? There has been a wide-spread interest in the question of the release of Sir Oswald Mosley. There are a very large number of Amendments on very important questions down to the Address, and, as the Prime Minister has said, it is the main and principal occasion during the Parliamentary Session for dealing with these matters of outstanding importance. I also desire your guidance. If it is your decision that the Debate on Sir Oswald Mosley shall take place on the next Sitting Day as part of the Debate on the Address, what will be the position of those Members who wish to raise some other and much more important matters but at the same time desire to make some contribution to the Debate on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley? I would further desire you to consider that, if a large number of Members are precluded from taking part in this Debate on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley on account of having more important matters which they desire to raise, that Debate will not be an effective Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and I have put down a Motion, which will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow, drawing attention to the very grave alarm and distrust which have been caused in this connection and proposing that the Government should take the necessary action to re-intern Mosley. I suggest that it would be very unfair, in regard to a discussion on a question of this character that has aroused so much feeling throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—to fit it in somewhere as part of the general discussion on the King's Speech. That would be to evade the whole question that is at issue, and, in order to get a proper Debate on this matter, it should be taken separately from the King's Speech as a subject in itself related to the war against Fascism, and it should be debated on the basis of a distinct Motion, so that we


would have something in the nature of a real Debate and at the conclusion of the Debate a Division of this House in order to see where the House stands on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I really think that it is better that I should say something now. The considerations that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) are perfectly correct. If the Debate took place as part of the general Debate, hon. Members would be precluded from talking on other matters, but that situation need not arise. An Amendment has been handed in to the King's Speech which is in Order, and therefore I propose to call that on the next Sitting Day. Hon. Members then, if they wish, can talk on that Amendment, and they will not therefore forfeit their right to talk on the general subject.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will state the terms of that Amendment and whether the Amendment will be put to the House at the conclusion of the Debate, thus enabling Members to divide?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow, and the Question will be put at the end of the Debate, so that Members can divide.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: There are two main issues with regard to the Business on the third Sitting Day. The first is the question of Imperial collaboration and the second is the Constitution for Newfoundland and whether she shall get back her authority. The first question has never been discussed in this House, although it is a burning issue and has very wide ramifications. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to separate the question of the Constitution of Newfoundland and keep it for some other occasion, as many Members want to speak on the broadest application of the question?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Since you have decided not to call the Amendment of myself and my hon. Friends about Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker:
["But humbly regret that no mention is made in the Gracious Speech of any offer to restore self-government to Newfoundland and thus put an end to a state of affairs which is unworthy of our imperial traditions."]

we find ourselves in a very difficult position. If only one day is to be given to Imperial affairs, at some stage in the Debate Newfoundland will have to be condensed, or the other subject which my hon. Friend pointed out will have to be neglected. In view of the fact that three hon. Members have been in Newfoundland and we want to hear their reports, and in view of the statements which my hon. Friends and myself want to put before the House, cannot we have a whole day for the Debate on Newfoundland? I do ask you to consider that, because it is not going to be satisfactory and, to my mind, will be taken as an affront by the people of Newfoundland themselves meaning that we can Debate Mosley for a whole day and that Newfoundland cannot adequately be debated.

Mr. Speaker: I had hoped that part of a day might be devoted to the subject of Newfoundland, but if there are objections to that, it will not be possible, I am afraid, for that subject to be reached in the present series of Sittings in any event. After all, every hon. Member thinks his Amendment is the important one. I have not counted all the Amendments which have been put down on the Paper, but honestly, I had to scratch my head a good deal in trying to get at the most important issue raised by them, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that Newfoundland will get a separate day on an Amendment to the King's Speech.

Mr. Baxter: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will consider giving a whole day for the discussion of Newfoundland and taking the subject out of the Debate on the Address altogether?

Mr. Attlee: We can see how the Debate on Dominion questions generally goes with regard to Newfoundland, and in the light of that, consider what further discussion should be given to Newfoundland.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to raise the question of the Amendment which stands in my name and that of some of my colleagues:
["But humbly regret that no provision is made to increase Old Age Pensions to 30s. per week, without a means test; to deal with the serious housing situation which is so vital for health and for the combating of tuberculosis; to implement the Beveridge Plan in full; nor to propose measures for a


further development of sell-Government to Scotland, with the retention and expansion of its industries and the restoration of its depleted population."]
It is essentially a Scottish Amendment, and we consider it most important. Time and again we have held up the Business of this House on Scottish affairs. The last time was when the question of compensation arose, and some of my colleagues were annoyed at me and at my hon. Friends from Scotland because we were using up the time of the House when they wanted to discuss other matters. We wish to show to the House that by setting up again the Scottish Grand Committee this could be avoided. Scottish Members would be removed from this House to transact Scottish Business, in St. Andrew's House if necessary. This Amendment has been put down in order to draw attention to the hellish conditions that are prevailing at the moment in Scotland—not in Newfoundland or in Japan, but in our own native land.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member cannot have caught what I said earlier. In the last sentence which I used I said—although I do not hold out much hope to the hon. Member—that as regards the subjects to be debated in the next series of Sitting Days I hope to make a statement later, and I have noted what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. G. Strauss: With regard to the Debate on the next Sitting Day, you have told us, Sir, that you propose to accept an Amendment to the Address for discussion. As things stand, hon. Members will not know the terms of that Amendment until they come to the House, and that, I suggest, will be extraordinarily inconvenient. Doubtless you, Sir, have the terms of the proposed Amendment before you, as you have said that you are prepared to accept it for discussion, and I therefore ask whether it would not be convenient to inform the House now of the terms of that Amendment.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Before you do so, Sir, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, whether, in view of the fact that the Debate on the release of Sir Oswald

Mosley has nothing to do with the King's Speech, an extra day will be given for Debate on the other and much more important matters which do arise on the King's Speech?

Major Lloyd: May we have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion on the next Sitting Day on the Amendment to which reference has been made, will be without prejudice to the Motion which is on the Order Paper in connection with the reconsideration of Regulation 18B?

[That this House is of opinion that the time has come for reconsideration of Regulation 18B and of the practicability of bringing to trial those now in detention on the sole responsibility of the Home Secretary.]

Mr. Speaker: That last question has nothing to do with me. I do not select the Motions which have been put down on the Order Paper. That is the responsibility of the Government. As regards what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), I am not certain that he is not criticising my decision. I have said quite frankly that when these matters boil up, I think it is far better to get them settled straight away and have done with them.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you did not think that I was in any way reflecting on your decision. You will remember that I prefaced my remark by saying that I wished, through you, to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would give an extra day to the Debate on the Address, in view of the fact that the question of Sir Oswald Mosley's release does not really arise out of the King's Speech, and therefore we are losing one day which could otherwise be devoted to the discussion of more important subjects?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to which reference has been made and which I propose to accept for discussion is as follows:
But humbly regret the decision of your Majesty's advisers to release Sir Oswald Mosley, which is calculated to retard the war effort and lead to misunderstanding at home and abroad.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Third Day.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question.—[24th November.]
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Commander Brabner.]

Question again proposed.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: In the Gracious Speech, reference is made to the much improved position in which we find ourselves in regard to the war after four years of struggle, and the Speech rightly pays a very well-deserved compliment to our Russian Allies, who have borne the greater part of the attack of the German Armies. The Lord President of the Council, when he dealt with the war situation on the first day of the Debate on the Address, also reviewed recent events in a very interesting way, but when he came to his eagerly-awaited statement regarding the losses of Cos and Leros, I do not think my right. hon. Friend did either himself or the House justice. He referred to the fact that had the Government not taken action to attack those islands, there would have been criticism. I think it is probably true that there would have been definite criticism if no attempt had been made to occupy them. But I would point out to my right hon. Friend and the Government that it is not in that form that criticism has been offered. Personally, I have heard no criticism of the Government's decision to make those attacks, but I have heard very definite criticism of the method which the Government adopted in starting the adventure. That criticism is mainly directed to the occupation of Cos and Leros without having first secured the main base of Rhodes—a decision which is really made more difficult to understand when we consider what my right hon. Friend said. He said that a small party was sent to Rhodes but that

the Italians did not respond. We have been told that there were 9,000 Germans and 40,000 Italians on Rhodes. I do not know what may have happened between the Germans and the Italians, but I think we can make a shrewd guess that the Germans did not trust their Italian Allies very far, and it is more than probable that the Italians on that island were either fully or partially disarmed or, at any rate, in no situation to rise in our support against their German masters. I would not particularly blame the Germans if they did not trust the Italians, knowing the treatment the Italians have meted out to us on different occasions.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is extraordinary that we should have sent a small party to the Island of Rhodes and let it come away again merely because the Italians did not respond. The matter is made the more surprising when one realises what has been said in another place, because there the spokesman of the Government stated that the British party was refused permission to land. That, surely, is the height of absurdity. It gives one the impression that when the British got to Rhodes they said to the troops there, "We have come to make 9,000 of you prisoners," and as they did not accept that suggestion the British went away. I think the House is entitled to a fuller explanation than that given by the Government. I do not in the least criticise the decision of the Government to take action; I am not in any position to make such a criticism, nor have I ever heard any criticism of that kind, but surely here is a situation on which the House is entitled to more information than it has so far received. There is not only the question of the valuable lives lost, not only the question of the imprisoning of a large number of men who had fought at Cos and Leros with great valour against impossible odds, but there is the effect that the evacuation of these islands must have on the situation in the Near East. I hope that these events will be overshadowed by Allied successes elsewhere; I am sure they will, but that does not alter the fact that in Turkey and the Near East generally these losses from an expedition apparently so badly planned cannot have anything but a bad effect. I think we have to realise that, in the Near East particularly, strength is the one thing admired and respected. Any exhibition of weakness of this kind is much to be


regretted. I realise, of course, that the main part of our troops are engaged in Italy, but surely it would have been possible to send sufficient men to Rhodes to make sure that we could deal with the Germans there. In that connection, one of the difficulties of the public is that they do not know, of course, where a great many of the British troops are stationed, and rightly do not know. I am not suggesting that we ought to know, because these things cannot be fully told in time of war. I do not know where the Ninth Army is, but it is almost impossible to believe that we have not enough troops to have put up a real show in the Ægean.
In various speeches by Ministers, especially in those by the Prime Minister, emphasis has been laid, quite rightly, on the danger of the country becoming too optimistic. I think that is a very wise attitude, and I think it is one adopted by most Members of Parliament, but I would suggest to the Government that it is not unnatural for the country to take an optimistic view of events when account is taken of the tremendous advance by the Russians—which is a subject of admiration to all of us—and of the evidence of the bombing attacks on German cities, when people are bound to think that it must be difficult, indeed, for the Germans to stand up to these continual attacks. In regard to the Italian campaign, I frankly find myself in some difficulty. I have the greatest admiration for what our troops are doing there against very great difficulties. One would like to feel that we have ample men and supplies—according to the papers this morning we have—to enable us to succeed against climatic difficulties and the forces that the Germans have been able to range against us. But, on the other hand, I see from neutral sources, particularly from the best known Swiss military commentator, that the real delay is not caused by the weather, but because we have not enough troops. I do not suggest that that is true; I do not know. I do not think the country is getting enough information—not nearly enough. I am not pressing the Government to publish anything that would do us the slightest harm in carrying on the war, but I do stress that if they wish the country to be less optimistic, then they must give it a little more information. At the moment there is nothing to show people the urgent necessity for extending

our efforts. May I just say one more word on that subject? It is probable that one of the difficulties is that the figures which are supplied regarding the losses on the various fronts, if totalled up, bring to the statistician, at any rate, some very surprising results. I am told that students who have carefully noted the German losses in Russia alone have come to the conclusion that no German Army now exists at all—it has all been wiped out. It really means, of course, that new forces have been enlisted and trained.
Another example is that of the figures quoted in some of the papers about Japanese losses in the South-West Pacific. These figures show that the Japanese at the beginning of their war had 18 battleships, of which the Americans have sunk three and damaged ten; the Japanese had 18 aircraft carriers, and of this number the Americans have sunk six and damaged nine; the Japanese had 56 cruisers, and the Americans have sunk 34 and damaged 68, and four more have been probably sunk; the Japanese had 156 destroyers, of which 76 have been sunk, 82 damaged and 18 probably sunk. The reason I give these figures is that unless the public get more information as to what is happening they will obviously think the war is largely over, and that we have destroyed a great deal of the enemy's power to fight. I do not give these figures for the purpose of calling attention to inaccuracies; I do not think the figures are inaccurate, from the point of view of observers at the time, but what must be put against them is the very large force which the enemy can bring into the field by enlistment and training.
There is another point on this question of optimism. I do not criticise what is said in America, because I think, on the whole, the great American newspapers are extremely fair and do their best to put the progress of the war clearly before their people, but I think it is also true that students of American newspapers, as a whole, find that there is a tendency to give the American people the idea that nobody is really fighting in the war except themselves. I know the danger of saying anything that would upset our American Allies, but I do not think plain speaking will cause resentment. Some of them know the danger that there may be to the after-war position if their people get the impression that the whole war has been won by America.
A few days ago the Foreign Secretary, on his return from Moscow, gave the House an account of the proceedings there to the extent that he was able to make them public, and I think the House desires to congratulate him on his able handling of his share in that Conference. Of course, I do not know what happened there, but one thing is obvious, and that is that there has been a noticeable falling off, since that Conference, in the demand from the Russians for an immediate second front. I therefore presume that Marshal Stalin and his advisers were satisfied with what they heard. As I say, I do not know, but I hope that that is true. One thing that particularly interested me and, I think, the House generally is the fact that an agreement was come to regarding the treatment of Germany after the war. I do not think that any of us wish to be vindictive. Eventually Germany will have to take her place among the civilised nations to the extent that her population and scientific development entitles her but there must be a period—and possibly a long period—before that during which the Germans must learn once and for all the lesson that war does not pay, and that she has definitely lost this war—she did not appreciate her defeat in the last. It means, I think, a very severe measure of control by the Allies after the war, the disbandment of Germany's armed forces, the punishment of those who have been guilty of some of the atrocious crimes we read of almost every day, the control of her industries which might form part of a possible war potential for the future, and, above all, the destruction, if we can, of the Prussian spirit which has been responsible for three wars in 100 years.
This is not the time to go into these matters in detail, but there is one point, which is not specially mentioned in the publications about the Moscow Conference, which I desire to bring to the notice of the House. At the end of the last war Germany re-built her whole economic position by a system which was extremely ingenious and which we must guard against in the future. She divided her currency into two categories—internal and and external—with the result that she was able to deal with certain other nations by means of nothing less than a system of blackmail and robbery. She said bluntly, "We will have internal and external marks. We will buy anything from

abroad and we will pay in these special marks, which will only be valid to purchase in Germany such goods as we wish to sell." This was possible as the Aski-Marks or other external currency had no value in the international market. The consequence of that was that she was able to hold up to ransom quite a number of countries that wanted to sell goods to her. I do not think there is any doubt that after this war we shall have to divide the future currency of Germany again into external and internal parts, but both will have to be under close control, particularly the external currency. What we have to guard against is this: The moment Germany admits defeat—and she knows now that she is defeated—there will be immediately a wild flight from the mark and tremendous inflation. The Allies must be ready then to bring in an organisation which will introduce strict rationing and prohibit the printing of paper money. It is most important that we should be ready then before Germany makes it possible to repeat the manoeuvres of 25 years ago.
The Gracious Speech tells us of the Government's intention to complete plans for the transition period between war and peace. That is a very important matter, and it is one which will probably attract most attention in the House during the coming weeks. We cannot too early get on with plans so that we are not caught napping if, by the grace of God, we get peace much more quickly than we are entitled to rely upon. In the past year most of the discussions of this subject have been on social security, the Beveridge plan and other schemes of that kind. There is much in these that all of us would like to see implemented. I would like to see a good deal done not only from the point of view of social security but from a very different point of view altogether, namely, that only on the basis of home purchasing power can we rebuild our economic system. I am, therefore, anxious to see strong purchasing power at home. Nevertheless, there is a danger in these schemes. It is the danger that certain people are beginning to believe that they can count on the State for everything, that they can get all they want and that work is a secondary matter. The important thing in the forthcoming years is that working men should be able to get well-paid and secure


work. That is far more important than any scheme of social reform. If a working man gets his wages regularly and is secure, he has plenty of brains to look after himself and his future. I am not worried so much about these schemes if we can solve the unemployment problem.
In connection with this point, there is one argument which is constantly being used and which is highly dangerous. I heard it in my own division, and no doubt Members have heard it in theirs. It is: "If we can afford so and so in war, we can afford it in peace." That is the most fatal and most dangerous argument anybody could use. These people say that only war gives us full employment. But we have not any full employment at all in war. The country is not employed. I doubt whether 50 per cent. of the people are employed from a peace-time standpoint. The Army is not employed from a peace-time standpoint. Employment means the production of goods and the provision of services for human consumption and needs, not for destruction, and consequently you are in a position in which at the present moment more than half the population is being paid and fed out of borrowed money. It is a most erroneous idea to suggest that we have full employment in war; we have nothing of the kind, and anything that can be said in this House or elsewhere to counteract that idea can do nothing but good.
We have heard a lot about houses and food. They are both there if we work for them, but they are not there until we do. We have not earned houses and food for everybody; all we have earned is the right to work for them when victory comes, and that is a very different thing. It is not doing any good to spread the idea that everything at the end of the war will be very easy and that we shall get complete happiness, security and prosperity without a very great deal of hard work. An important matter was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in his speech the other day, namely, housing, about which I would like to say a few words. As the years of the war go on and the Government's demand for new and urgent war construction comes towards an end, I think the question of housing cannot be left until the end of hostilities. Housing conditions in

this country are unspeakably bad. Although one realises the difficulties and that the necessities of the war must come first, that is one of the things the Government should devote their attention to, even before the end of the war. They should release such labour as is possible, and get on with new construction now.
But the main problem in our reconstruction considerations is that of our currency, exchange and economic system in the future. That is the one thing that we want to see the thinking minds in the country devoting themselves to without delay. On that depends the whole prosperity of our export trade, and we cannot too soon engage with other nations in the negotiations which will be required to bring about a stable system of exchange after the war and at the same time consider methods to secure for ourselves an internal system which will promote trade and enterprise and not lead to deflation. Empire development in the future may give us much greater prosperity if we devote ourselves to it. We have not, done much in the past in that direction, and we could do a great deal more. But the first basis of our prosperity is home-consuming power. We have to drop many of our preconceived ideas, whether political or economic, and start again with new views and new courage if we are going to meet the difficulties successfully which will face us after the war.
During the war the individual, both in private life and in industry, has of course been hampered, controlled and governed by the orders of the Government. That is inevitable, and everyone realises the necessity far it, but it would be very hard to exaggerate the resentment and the boredom of the people at these restrictions on their home life and on industry. They are very severe, and the people are terribly tired of them. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade is going to make an announcement on the subject of the small trader. It is high time, for the small trader has practically been battered out of existence in the last few years, fn many cases without compensation and without any means of starting again. We must get these people back. If we asked them what they wanted more than anything else, they would say, I think, they want to be allowed as soon as possible to manage their own affairs free of restrictions and Government orders. We want to put an end as soon as we can to the dead


hand of bureaucracy. I suggest that the Government should set up a Committee or Commission of some kind to decide in what way controls can be gradually removed. Some will have to be continued for a time, but there should not be any delay in getting a committee of that kind.

Viscount Hincitingbrooke: Is my hon. Friend still talking of the small trader?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: No, I am talking of controls generally. I referred to the small trader in view of the statement of the Board of Trade. I do not want us to be caught if we get a sudden peace. I want the whole thing thought out beforehand. In the industrial controls it would be idle to pretend that there has been no criticism of the operations. There have been accusations both of favouritism and of the defence and extension of private interests. At the same time I want to pay the highest possible tribute to the numerous business men who have devoted themselves disinterestedly for years to managing these controls. It does not alter my admiration for them to say that there have been these criticisms, which it would be well worth the Government's while to note. In some cases I suppose it was inevitable that the Government should enlist the services of some of the great combines, but I am sure that the disinterested people in these controls will be the first to wish to return to their usual avocations.
There is another aspect of this matter of a more general kind. After the war there will be the danger of the cartel system. It exists in this country, and in my views cartels in the past have generally resulted in keeping inefficient producers in being and restricting production. They have had an adverse effect on the consumer. If any Member had the industry and the leisure, he might be well advised to read some of the evidence and conclusions of the United States Department of Justice Anti-trust Division, and there he would see exactly what has come to light regarding the activities of Germany. He would find it stated that German control has not only prevented supplies of aviation spirit being available for some American planes, but that some share of the cost of the petrol used in Great Britain in her attacks upon the enemy found its way into German hands.

These are very serious statements. The President of the United States Chambers of Commerce, who was recently a visitor here said, on his return to America that he had been asked here, "Are you going to repeal your anti-trust laws?" Evidently inquirers here hoped that Great Britain would try to induce America to fall into line and allow what has been described as the cartel system, permitted and even sponsored by the British Government, to extend to America. I do not think the British people will stand for any monopolies after the war; I sincerely hope not.
My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Address said that youth was anxious about the future, and he particularly wanted youth to have a share in the settlement of our problems. I very much hope they will have that share and will be able to avoid the mistakes of the past generation. I hope they will realise the absolute necessity, if we are going to secure peace, that we should have a sufficient armed force for the purpose. The Allies should have sufficient forces so that this time peace shall be secured—so that when the peace treaties come we shall have sufficient strength at sea, on land and in the air to implement them without any difficulty. We must never again be unprepared. Is youth prepared for that? As I see it, it means quite definitely a form of conscription. The great weakness of all democracies is that they always believe there are no aggressive, avaricious nations and that everyone is as peaceful as they are themselves. That is the danger, and we are going to be up against it, not the day after peace is declared, but in a few years. Those who will play a large part in the future settlement of these matters will make exactly the same mistake, if they are not careful, as was made before. If we want freedom we have to be prepared to fight for it. If we are prepared, it is extremely likely that we shall never have to do so. Democracy, however, generally hates conscription and talks of the loss of liberty. It is a small cost to pay for freedom. The time taken from industrial life falls equally on everyone and the training and working together on terms of complete equality is one of the highest expressions of democracy.
There is matter in the King's Speech which will engage the attention of Parlia-


ment for many weeks and months to come. Do not let us, I pray the Government, delay too long in coming to decisions. Above all, do not let us delay because we want to have perfect decisions. We shall never get a perfect decision at this stage. It is far better that we should make some mistakes, but be ready to act, than wait until the end of the war, till everyone has been consulted, in the hope that we shall get some perfect solution of all the difficulties. The final issue of the war is a moral and spiritual one. When victory is achieved we shall have to face a still greater task in the establishment of enduring peace and the restoration of liberty and freedom for the world.

Captain Poole: I am sure the House has listened with a great deal of interest and sympathy to the speech we have just heard. With a great part of it I found myself in complete agreement, though I would like to take exception to some of the things the hon. Gentleman said. I could not help being interested in his reference to the presentation of views in the United States. The first thing that I did when I came back from that country last year was to impress on the Ministry of Information how sadly we were lacking. If America thinks that she is doing the lion's share in winning this war, we have no one else to blame for it but ourselves. We have totally failed to tell the story of the great epic of what we accomplished during the early days of the war. While we should all like to know more of what is happening in the various theatres of war, and while it may be true that in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, I do not think that in a multitude of information there is always truth. To take an illustration from the country of which I have just spoken, I can think of nothing that contributes more to lack of clarity and vision in the thinking of the average American than the colossal volume of news poured out to him in his daily paper, on the radio, and from the public platform, from a multitude of speakers who speak with many voices and diverse conceptions. If ever we were to be flooded in a comparable way with such information as is being supplied to that great nation, there would be much more confusion than there is to-day in the direction of the war.
I am not competent to cover the vast amount of ground that the hon. Gentle-

man did, but the more I see of the war and what is necessary successfully to prosecute it the less I feel entitled to comment on its conduct. I think that in the main the strategy and tactics of this war have been excellent. There have been mistakes, but they have been very few and far between. It is not from that aspect of the hon. Member's speech that I want to speak, although my notes were prepared very much on the same lines as his. I want to direct myself to the urgency of the human problems that will confront this nation in the post-war period. I want to utter my condemnation—although that is perhaps a stronger word than I intended to use—of the vagueness of the Government's intentions for the post-war period. The time has arrived for the publication of positive plans for the post-war era. Government speakers are rightly asking for the continuation of a 100 per cent. war effort on the part of those engaged in industry. I am sure that they will only get that if they can inspire confidence in the postwar position of the people to whom they are addressing their appeal.
The days when the people of this Island fought grimly in order that they might survive have passed. Survival has become an accomplished thing. We are directing our attention to accomplishing the victory, and men and women are looking for an assurance that the Government will lead them to a much more abundant life than they knew before. I agree with the hon. Member that the post-war period will not be a period of ease and plenty. It will be a period in which we as a nation will have to face the need of working as hard as we have ever worked to accomplish the victory. The job of winning the peace will be as difficult as that of defeating Fascism. I believe that given a vision of the things which they are setting out to accomplish the people of this Island will be as willing to fight for the things that belong to the peace as they are to fight for the things that belong to the war. We have had new Ministerial appointments to the Government. Each week-end there descends upon us a shower of speeches both from hon. Members opposite, who do not always speak with quite the same voice, and from hon. Members on these benches—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who do not either."] I agree that they very seldom do. I am not sure it is not all to the good. It would be a dull world


if we all spoke with the same voice. We arrive at the truth only by differing. Commissions have sat, and reports have been published. New Ministerial appointments do not necessarily fill the larder and speeches do not necessarily buy shoes for children's feet. Commissions and reports do not make jobs available for men who want to work.
I want to know where the Government's plans are for the post-war period. I believe that men and women are asking for three things. While I attach the greatest importance to the Beveridge Report, I do not believe that it comes first in the post-war needs. I do not think that social security is the first thing in that programme. The first thing wanted is not an assurance that there will be unemployment pay. Men are asking for the assurance that they will never need to draw it. They are asking for jobs of work to do. The second thing for which they are asking, and which they are entitled to ask, are homes in which to live. The third thing which they are entitled to ask for is security in illness and adversity. In that order I place our prime post-war needs. We have been told that demobilisation is to be controlled. That is all to the good. The controlling of it will prove a much bigger problem to the Minister of Labour than the mere making of the statement. But that is only a fraction of the problem. The production of shells, tanks, guns and aeroplanes ceases, not in some leisurely fashion, but very abruptly, and we should like to know what exactly are the Government's plans for the transition from the production of weapons of war to that of weapons of peace.
The post-war period ought to be an era of unprecedented prosperity. We alone of all the European nations have our internal economy intact. We alone have an industrial machine capable of turning over to peace production. It is, however, going to be an enormous problem, and we should like to know how far the Government have gone in their plans to accomplish it. Is everything being done to train the necessary personnel so that they might fit into that transition?—[Interruption.] I wish the noble lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would wait until she is called before she makes her speech and not try to make it in between

my sentences. It makes it difficult for one who does not speak very often. I apologise for having to say this.

Viscountess Astor: I apologise, too.

Captain Poole: I believe that here is a marvellous opportunity for tackling both these things—work and homes for the people. We are faced in the immediate post-war period with a shortage of probably 5,000,000 houses. I was astounded to hear the Government's proposal to meet that problem on a ten-year basis and to think that they should be so lacking in the appreciation of a common problem as to think that this was a problem that should last for so long a period. Probably no members of the Government have lived three families to a house; I have seen those who have and have seen families living in one room; and I would condemn all members af the Government to spend six months under these conditions. At the end of it they would realise that ten years is a fantastic period for dealing with this problem. Men who have fought in the Middle East will not be prepared to wait ten years for a house. These men have not slept in a bed for many years, and they will want something better than the promise of a house in ten years' time. Those people who have married in the enthusiasm of the moment will want a home in a shorter period than that, and it is in the interests of the nation that they should have it. I hope they will not be prepared to wait, and I am sure that they will not be.
I feel that 2,000,000 homes a year should be our immediate post-war target. How are we to get them? It is easy to say that we must mobilise all our resources. We have to sweep away many prejudices which we have held in the realm of housing. I hope I am not anticipating anything that may be said by hon. Members who have lately been making a survey of the manner in which housing has been tackled across the Atlantic when I ask: Why not have prefabrication in house building? I have no interest in the building industry, so that I can speak frankly about this. I have lived in pre-fabricated houses in temperatures 32 below zero and 110 above, and I know that we have false conceptions of the way in which these


houses could fulfil the need. We have always thought that when we built a house that we were building something to last 100 years, that we could live in it through our lifetime and then hand it down to our children. Some day we shall have a Minister of Health with a progressive outlook who will realise that the life of an average house should be 25 years. If I were a Minister of Health, the first thing I would do would be to bring in legislation giving local authorities power to license house building for a maximum period of 25 years, at the end of which, unless a house fulfilled normal, decent standards, it would be abolished. In that way slums never could arise.
A house built to-day with present scientific development is hopelessly out of date at the end of 25 years. It is the out of date house that makes housework the drudgery it is and it is what brings slums upon us. We will pay £400 for a motor-car in which we will spend an hour a day and think it right and proper to exchange it at the end of the year because it has become obsolete, but our thinking is so muddled that when we spend twice that amount on a house we believe it should last 100 years. If it is good to change a motor-car, in which we spend an hour a day, at the end of a year, it would be a good policy to change a house, in which we spend 16 hours a day—at any rate the wife does—at the end of 25 years. I suggest, therefore, that many of the factories now engaged on war production should turn over to the manufacture of pre-fabricated housing units. We could easily get 2,000,000 houses a year. Skilled labour does not enter into the problem. If houses were prefabricated we could soon provide real homes for the people. I wish hon. Members could see those that have been provided for American workers in war industry. They are comfortable and have every modern convenience.
I would like to say a word on agriculture, as much of my Division is agricultural. I cannot but feel that the farmer and farm worker in spite of the agitation and speeches of succeeding Ministers of Agriculture, who seem to have passed through the House fairly frequently and freely, have still to get their straight deal from the Government. All that the agricultural industry has for the post-war

period is, first, that all grassland will be ploughed up by the end of 1944, and, second, that current prices will prevail for one year after the end of hostilities. It seems beyond the conception of the Minister of Agriculture to realise that agriculture is an industry. If an industry is making pots and pans and the country ceases to want them, the manufacturer can cease to make them and can make something else. The farmer cannot do that. He cannot change over from one system to another. His must always be a long-term policy, and he must always be thinking many years ahead. This industry, probably the most important industry, ought to be removed out of the sphere of party politics at the earliest possible moment. Succeeding Governments have not been able to give long-term thinking to this industry simply because they knew they were in office for only four or four-and-a-half years, and they were looking, after the third year, for some sop to give the industry to insure its support in the succeeding election. We have now a Government of all the talents—at any rate, most of the talents. It is a Government of all the parties, and it provides a marvellous opportunity to draw up a ten-year plan. Why could it not be drawn up in agreement with the major parties in the House? Then in the post-war period, each Government, of whatever party it might be formed, would be tied to a policy to which they had submitted while they were a party in the Coalition Government. The farmer would then know how he stood and how he could plan his industry, and there would be some reasonable chance of giving the farm worker a better standard of life than he has ever enjoyed.
Another point to which I wish to turn is that of emigration. I have already urged upon the Government the need for an intelligent emigration policy. We have had staff talks with our Allied and Dominion Governments for the prosecution of the war. I am still waiting for staff talks with the Dominion Governments on the prosecution of the peace. We ought to have met the Dominion Governments long before now and agreed with them upon a sane and intelligent scheme, because many of our young men have been to the Dominions, have met and lived with the people there, have come to love them and will desire to go there when the war is over. I want to know whether the


Government have any plan making it easy for them to go there and assuring to them some measure of security in the first year or two after they settle in the new country.
Thirdly, and finally, there is the question of security for our people in sickness and adversity. We have never treated our own people aright. I do not think the Beveridge Report treats our own people aright. I should have liked to have seen in the King's Speech some assurance that the Government were prepared to do justice to that section of the community. Will there be security for the sick, the wounded and the maimed? I see little earnest of a desire to play fair by our fighting men. I see very little desire again to give them justice. All through this war, again, they have been grossly underpaid, placed in an inferior financial position to almost every Allied soldier whom they have been fighting alongside. I hope that our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and merchant seamen, will stick together and will hound out of office any Government, of whatever party, which does not accord justice to them on their return. We cannot afford to repeat the experience we had following the last war. I think the Government know the feeling in industry about the treatment of disabled workers. That is a matter still calling for worthier treatment. These are but a few of the things which ordinary men want to know about; they want to know the mind of the Government, and above all to know it quickly. We have mobilised everything for the prosecution of the war, and I believe that any Government which fails to do likewise in order that men and women may enjoy the fruits of their labour and live their lives in confidence and hope will have been false in face of the great sacrifices of this very brave people.

Mr. Denman: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Captain Poole) will allow me to thank him for an admirable speech, which I should like to describe as a representative utterance. He has given expression to the widespread feelings of impatience at the slowness of our preparations for the post-war period; he has emphasised the need we all feel for a housing programme on a huge scale and its most immediate application at the end of the war; and also expressed the widespread determination

that agriculture must be treated better than it was after the last war. The Government have really only themselves to blame for the fact that the King's Speech has been received with great doubts. They have not succeeded in getting on with the reconstruction job to the extent that all of us with a forward outlook had reasonably anticipated. It has long been a valid criticism of the Government that they have wasted the capacity of the present Parliament. Let them look at the achievements of the Parliament of 1917–18 that sat and acted in very similar circumstances. In those days we were allowed to get on with major reconstruction legislation, and produced some Acts of the highest importance. In this Parliament we have been starved of major legislation.
There are, roughly, three main functions of Parliament—to control the Executive, to be the grand forum of debate, and to pass legislation. The first two functions we have performed pretty fully. For the first two any ordinary Parliament, with party divisions, is probably more fitted than a united Parliament of the type we now enjoy, but the supreme job that a Parliament of the present kind can perform is passing large scale legislation such as would be almost impracticable in the days of ordinary party manoeuvres. Of that work we have been absolutely starved. The King's Speech does give some hopes, but we cannot make up for the lost time. I am afraid that owing to this lack of big constructive work the atmosphere of unity has been somewhat impaired and we are less efficient than we should have been a year ago. The arrears of work are now so great that it is unlikely that we shall be able to catch up with them during the war—at least I earnestly hope the war will not go on as long as would be required to enable us to overtake them.
The King's Speech is rich in matters that are to be laid before us for our consideration, but poor in legislation that we are invited to pass. I see that we are to have put before us and to discuss the results of the Government's consideration of such matters as the Barlow, the Uthwatt and the Beveridge Reports, but he is indeed an optimist who hopes for legislation this Session in respect of any of those. We are to have legislation upon matters certainly of importance but of minor significance, such as the training for


employment of disabled people. We shall welcome a Measure to deal with that. We shall welcome also a Measure far the reinstatement of persons discharged from the Armed Forces. But the only large-scale subject that we are asked to deal with by legislation is the redevelopment of areas which by reason of enemy action, overcrowding or otherwise are to be replanned as a whole. Even education is a subject that is only to be laid before us. I hope that in that respect the King's Speech has not properly expressed Ministerial intentions. I believe the Government do intend that we shall pass an Education Bill, but they might at least have invited us to do so.
What, then, is the position? We have education as one big Bill, and another big Bill to confer special powers for the re-development of areas. Two Bills of that size are probably about as much as we shall get into one Session with our existing times of sittings. If we want to pass more important legislation we must clearly alter our hours and our methods—but, indeed, I am not optimistic enough to believe that the Government have these bigger measures ready for us. Unless Bills relating to social security, the location of industry and development rights in land are ready early in 1944, I think they have no chance of passing in this Session. May I, by the way, ask a question on the paragraph relating to social security? We are told there is to be a new scheme of workmen's compensation. Are we to understand that to mean that workmen's compensation is to be kept a separate subject outside the general scheme of social security? I hope not. The Beveridge plan definitely brought it within the total scheme. The Government, in accepting the scheme, expressed doubts as to what they would do in relation to workmen's compensation. But if the new workmen's compensation plan is simply a further building up of the present structure and not a transference into the major organisation of social security, I believe we shall be missing a great opportunity.
It is agreed, of course, that this reconstruction policy must be a secondary task in no way prejudicing the Government's conduct of their primary job. Here let me say that the attitude of this House can be a quite vital factor. If we enter upon the work of reconstruction, the passing of

these Measures, with animosities and ill-temper, we may easily make the difficulties of the Government so enormous as to destroy the prospects of any worthwhile results. I always hoped that the very fact of putting major reconstructive opportunities before this House would induce the spirit of unity, would give us a pride in our job, which we should realise was of the first importance. I trust that we shall be able to pull together and encourage the Government to the utmost to get on with this task that means so much to our future.
I pass from criticism of the Government to refer briefly to administration, and to offer praise. I do most cordially agree with the sentiment expressed by the seconder of the Motion for the Humble Address when he spoke of the value of a little appreciation. That applies quite as much to Ministers as to miners, and I want to say a few words of appreciation of Ministers on the administrative side of their work. We all know its shortcomings; we have cases in our constituencies daily showing difficulties in details that have arisen, and irritations that we have to try to put right; but looking at the total national effort by and large I say that the administration of this country during the war has been a magnificent achievement creditable alike to Ministers who have had to control it and to the people, who have accepted difficulties and failures with understanding good-will. One point I would try to impress upon Ministers. They should do their best to reduce wastefulness in administration to a minimum. Much goes on that cannot be helped in war time—we all know it—but wastefulness always has an injurious effect not only upon organisation and output but upon public morale. It is difficult to encourage the private virtue of avoiding waste in the face of so much obvious Government vice in this direction.
In singling out one item of administration for special applause, I select the much debated 18B, not only because it is apposite to current controversy but because it represents the high watermark of Fascist practice in this country. That Regulation empowers Ministers to intern citizens, guilty of no offence, simply because in the opinion of the Minister the citizen is a public danger. There is one curious feature of 18B that is not generally recognised, which is that the detained per-


son has no right of release when he has ceased to be a public peril. Once the Minister has got him, he is there until the Minister chooses to let him out. If he is put in under the first sub-section of 18B, it is as a person who has been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or in the preparation or instigation of such acts. That is the condition of his going in, and clearly, if he has been there three or four years he can no longer have been recently concerned in such acts.
Such powers in the hands of a man who was a natural dictator or liked to play the part of a bully or had any Fascist leanings, could be an engine of the grossest tyranny, but so far as we know the facts we see no signs that 18B has been administered in that spirit. The whole process under the present Home Secretary has been one of steady and sensible release, and that is right. We cannot observe as a result that there has been any increase in the national peril.

Sir Robert Tasker: May I remind my hon. Friend that it is the method we have to bear in mind and not the man who administers it? The hon. Member is advocating this method.

Mr. Denman: That is my whole point. This is the maximum degree of Fascist practice to which we have attained in war-time, and it is only to be tolerated for the very special purposes of national defence. I would congratulate the Minister on the spirit in which he has let people out. I think he might have gone further. The danger of keeping some of these people in is so largely past that he could ask himself, "For what purpose am I detaining these people?" rather than the question, "Is it now time that they were released?" We shall talk about the Mosley case on the next Sitting Day, so I must not refer to it to-day in detail, but obviously the Home Secretary was bound to ask himself, "What and whom does this man imperil if I let him out?" That question ought always to be asked, and I put it to my constituents who are protesting, and I have not had any answer to show that any risk is run if he is out and subject to the restrictions that have been imposed. A man who is such a marked public character that he can take no action whatever that could be deemed to imperil the public safety without bringing upon his head a fresh internment is, I think, the safest possible man to let out.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that between 1st September, 1938, and 1st September, 1939, the British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald Mosley received a very large sum of money from Germany, from the Nazi Party?

Mr. Denman: That is irrelevant to the administration of 18B, which is what I am discussing at the moment. We must not intrude upon the subject which is to be discussed upon the next Sitting Day. What the Fascists did in 1938 or 1939 is irrelevant to the peril caused by individual Fascists in 1943. Regulation 18B has a further danger about it, that it is always, liable to encourage mass hysteria. We remember the hysteria there was about spies in the last war. There was a real spy mania, and people were locked up for no adequate reason. The existence of 18B encourages the taste for imprisonment without trial. We are liable at any moment to get this slight hysterical emotion in the public mind. I suppose we are among the steadiest folk in the world, yet—

Mr. E. P. Smith: I hope the hon. Member does not think that I am hysterical.

Mr. Denman: We get slight attacks of this disease.

Viscountess Astor: Slight?

Mr. Denman: I believe that we are suffering at the moment from one of these slight attacks. That brings me to speak of one of the duties of this House in this matter of mass hysteria, which is always directed against the Government. We should be the buffer to protect the Government against worries of this kind. It is our function to discuss things and to hammer out realities and apply the medicine of common sense, so as to cure this ill-directed emotion. On the next Sitting Day we shall have the opportunity, which the critics of the Home Secretary have consistently avoided, of bringing their criticism to the test of a Division. Time after time I have wanted to show in the one practical form open to me that I have thought well of the administration of 18B by the Home Secretary, but every time, for different reasons, his attackers have declined to bring the matter to the vote, because they were aware not merely of the poverty of their arguments but of the poverty of support


they had in this House. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of showing the Government that we do rally round them in support of the administration of this Regulation.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: I shall not follow the last speaker in his references to 18B, but I want to speak on the theme "Hands off local government." There is a widespread feeling to-day against the Government taking over services from the local authorities. It tends to reduce the powers and duties of local authorities. The veterinary and fire services have gone to Whitehall, and there is the transfer of all functions relating to milk production to the Ministry of Agriculture. This process seems to be the declared policy of the Government. A few years ago the Government took over control of the trunk roads, and today there are feelers out for them to take over class 1 roads. The Ministry of Agriculture, his Parliamentary Secretary and their staff have done a marvellous job during the war in this basic industry, which is vital to the well-being of the country, but there is a very strong feeling among the farmers who are producing and retailing milk. I have received a letter from my division which brings out the points. It says that the matter was discussed at a meeting, and it was decided to ask the Member of Parliament for the district to use his power in the House of Commons against the proposals of the White Paper relating to the heat treatment of milk. The letter went on:
Our objections are that the proposals would undo all the saving of man-power we have already saved on the zoning scheme of retail milk. Secondly, the heat treatment is no cure for dirty milk; and that we are of the opinion, if this is forced upon us, it will put the producer-retailer out of business for ever.
That is a serious thing, and there is a good deal of feeling about it. The veterinary services were transferred from the local authorities with the object of compelling farmers to produce clean milk. If methods of producing milk were always like they are in my constituency, there would be no need for pasteurisation plants, which are mainly for cleaning dirty milk. If the veterinary services are to be used to clean farms so that we can have a very much cleaner industry, if machinery is used for milking the beasts

and the milk is placed into bottles without touching human hands, and if herds are brought up for examination every six months, what is the use of cleaning the milk afterwards? If these improvements will make for a better service, I do not think we shall be hurt. It will be much better, but there is a very strong feeling that these services are coming over to the Government.
The small authorities in the country are becoming perturbed at the possible cost of police and other services. We shall very likely be told that the administration of the Weights and Measures Act can be remedied only by centralisation. Paragraph 117 of the White Paper on educational reconstruction proposes the abolition of Part III educational authorities without inquiry. There is no question whether they can afford this service, and very likely they are much more efficient as Part III authorities than those to whom they are being handed over. Our local government system is the pride of thousands of local administrators, and we should not disturb these services. I should say, give them a 100 per cent. grant, and let the work be done by the people on the spot with not too much interference by Government Departments. It was said in one City Council in the North not many weeks ago, when there was a debate on this matter, "After all, they are going to leave us at least the registration of births and deaths." What we require are services to be taken to the people, particularly in the rural districts. Excellent improvements were made by the 1929 Act, which reduced the number of local authorities and gave space for the large authorities to develop these services. I think that that would be admitted by anyone with experience in local government, in housing and various other services. I remember that in the 1929 Act we revolutionised the whole Poor Law system, removed the Poor Law Guardians and handed the service over to the county councils and the county boroughs. A great deal of credit has arisen from this and one is glad of that.
I hold the view that there are too many authorities to-day, too much overlapping and duplication of services. Thousands of officials and staff in this country could be dispensed with, in my view, if we had larger authorities and gave them the opportunity to develop, to expand and improve these essential services. I know


that the old cry is often raised that if you do this, you will remove local interest and initiative. I do not agree at all. Shall we go on tolerating some of the shocking conditions in the rural areas to-day, the old cesspools on the doorstep and very bad sanitation, no water carriage system, the old paraffin light, very little transport, isolated in many ways and almost forgotten—that is a very serious statement to make, but it is definitely true—bad housing and no hope for years of getting better homes in which to live and rear their families? Will the present authorities give the people any better conditions? I doubt it. They are merely, in the urban and rural areas, collectors for the precepting authorities, and the same applies to the urban district council. Is there a county council in this country which has the gas, electricity or transport undertakings or water undertakings to supply these places? The only people in the country who are doing this are the county boroughs. They are supplying these services. To me these services are the embodiment of democracy. These commodities are supplied very cheaply to the homes and in turn help to pay the rates out of the income from them.
My view is that when you de-rated all land and 75 per cent. of all productive industry you did a great disservice to local government authorities. True, they were given a block grant of £5,000,000, which never gave anyone any satisfaction, and very few people understood it. The money saved from industry should have gone to develop industry and to find employment, because that is the reason why this de-rating was brought into being. The saving of three-quarters of the rates from productive industry was given for development. I think it will be found that it has gone to shareholders rather than to the development of industry. Most of us in industry never heard of any big developments because of the saving of that money. It might be said that doing what I suggest would be a controversial matter in connection with local government. Already a good deal of trouble is being created by the proposition to transfer Part III authorities to county councils or county boroughs. Surely a full local government inquiry should have been part of our post-war planning.
If all these wonderful things which are being talked about in our post-war

planning are to take place, how can that be done unless we are to take on a greater measure of work in the Government Departments; or are you going to hand it on to the local authorities? I say that with a general view to giving better service to our people this should be done. Good wages and conditions in industry are essential and necessary to give our people a full life. We want in addition to that better social conditions, better homes and surroundings, more open spaces and parks for the children, better facilities for recreation. It is no use talking about and promising full citizenship without providing the opportunity. Can the present authorities as constituted give us the necessary improvements? I repeat that I doubt it. Are Government Departments going to do this by taking over those services which could be very well discharged, to my mind, by efficient local government authorities? There is a volume of opinion in this country that we should have a new authority known as the all-purpose authority and do away with some of our present authorities which have been functioning and in being for 50 years, and to my mind have served their day and generation. There is room for great improvement and co-ordination of our public services. I hope that in our post-war planning it will be a matter for full consideration.
I am very glad to know also that electoral reform is to be considered by a Conference with Mr. Speaker as Chairman. There is very nearly the same confusion on voting, so far as these local authorities are concerned, as there is with the Services. The urban districts vote in wards and so do rural districts, but in a county division four or five of these wards are put together and the Parliamentary area is wider still. People are confused, and I hope that this matter will be straightened out when this Conference does its work.
I am glad to know that the matter of workmen's compensation is in the Gracious Speech. I trust that the horny hands of toil will be more considered and the old Act tidied up. The workmen from every angle has not had a square deal in this country, although he produces the wealth. There never appears to be any question of a law to control profits except through taxation, which admittedly is severe to-day, owing to the


prosecution of the war. I would like one more word. I remember the old age pension Petition coming here the other day, which I think impressed most of us. The millions of signatures proved beyond doubt the very excellent organisation behind them. These stalwarts of industry, many of them having spent more than 50 years in our industrial machine, are worthy of a better and more generous pension. I suggest for early consideration that we might at least extend the limit of £49 7s. 6d. per annum in the assessment of means owing to the increased cost of living, or at least if that could not be done there should be an increase in the basic rate of 10s. per week. I conclude by saying, Let us try to make a little more contentment for the workers and for those beyond work, having given their all for the well-being of the nation.

Sir Robert Rankin: We have listened, I am sure, to a very sincere and well-informed speech. My own remarks will be brief. The Gracious Speech declared it to be the primary aim of the Government to ensure that at the end of the war good progress will be made in securing for industry, mining and agriculture a smooth transition from war to peace. Of course we can all give the strongest support to that declaration. Industry, mining and agriculture are all vitally important, but I will confine my own remarks to industry, which, I presume, although the Gracious Speech does not say so, includes commerce. Members know how very strictly at the present time commerce is regulated. I would like to refer in particular to the great market associations, to the great cotton markets, corn markets, timber markets, metal markets, produce markets; also Associations like shipbrokers, forwarding agents and freight brokers. What do we see? We see that through present-day control by Government servants those who have in the past earned their living by doing business in these markets and associations are not able at the present time to earn their living. They are losing trade connections which have been built up over a long period of years. Even more serious than that their markets are losing valuable connections which have been built up all over the world.
I submit that we are entitled to claim that the Government should implement

their promises and that as part of the transition from war to peace rapid progress should be made in freeing these markets and associations from Government control. In saying that I wish the House to understand that I am not thinking entirely of the elder persons who have been able to retain some connection with the industry, with the businesses to which they have devoted all their lives. I am really thinking more of the young men who are now in the Forces. They will have the right to demand that on their return to civil life they will be able to carry on the same business and make the same living as did their fathers. I am speaking of those young men who are the backbone of this country. Their numbers suffered grievously in the last war. They were "the first hundred thousand," and as members in all ranks of the new Armies and Territorials many thousands of them, the flower of this nation, died on the battlefields of the Somme and Passchendaele.
I submit that those who return after this war should not find their channels of occupation closed to them. They will be entitled to carry on the businesses of their fathers, to do business and trade in their markets and associations and to utilise their abilities, and their energies and enterprise in providing a living for themselves and their families, and for the benefit of the nation. It will be quite useless to endeavour to explain to them that schools of economics consider that their businesses could be carried on very much better by State control and civil servants. Nor do I consider that the country at large, which has an inherited and shrewd business instinct, as to what is best for itself, will disagree with them. I believe that the Government as a whole do not disagree. I consider that this vitally important matter will be safe as far as the Minister of Reconstruction is concerned. He said quite recently before he assumed his present office:
We have in our merchant traders a national asset which those who are making plans for a new world would do well to study-and I hope preserve. I trust that those responsible for shaping conditions will remove as soon as circumstances permit those controls that damp and deaden the spirit of enterprise.
That was said as one would have expected. None the less I hope before this Debate closes we shall have some reassurance from a Member of the Government on this most important matter.

Mr. Woodburn: I feel somewhat as I felt four years ago, in the position of having to make a maiden speech, as I am starting from a new place. I hope that the House will be as tolerant to me to-day as it was then. The Prime Minister recently stated in the House that he was not, and never had been, a Socialist. I have to state definitely that I am a Socialist. Therefore, there is considerable divergence between our points of view. The Prime Minister, in the public eye, typifies John Bull, and, if I understand agriculture aright, the worst thing to do with a bull is to hold a red flag before its face if you want to get the greatest measure of common agreement. Therefore I think the mere reiteration of whether we are Socialists or not is no contribution to the solution of the concrete problems which face us. Some of the speeches which have been made in the country recently, of a highly controversial character, about controls, have conveyed an impression that the Labour party is some organisation which prejudges everything, and does not deal with facts on their merits. The party for which I speak to-day does not approach the post-war problem with any bull-in-the-china-shop policy of nationalising everything from railways to toothbrushes. This attitude of certain Members towards my party is not making a wise contribution to the solution of post-war problems. There is a great danger to the community from these ill-informed and irresponsible types of propaganda. I suggest that in the debates on the King's Speech we should approach the problems in a practical and experimental manner, having due regard to the facts.
The problems of peace are likely to be upon us very soon, and the attitude of this party towards the programme outlined in the King's Speech is that it seems to convey a very pessimistic view by the Government that the war is not likely to be finished this year, because there is no indication of the legislation which would be absolutely vital if the immediate postwar problems were to be tackled energetically and soundly. My party feel that a lack of urgency is shown by the avoidance of any indication of definite legislation on many of these points. The question of controls has been raised in respect of the immediate post-war period. Much of the discussion has been purely subjective. I

am willing to challenge the Conservative Party to go to the country and say they will abolish all controls after the war. I am satisfied that, instead of wanting the abolition of Government interference, the Conservative party will be among the first to ask for Government interference.
Take agriculture, for example. Is there any possibility of agriculture being thrown on to its own resources after the war? Would the Conservative party say that the Government should withdraw all interference with agriculture, all planning of agriculture? The idea is nonsensical. The first to resent it would be the agriculturists. Is the Ministry of Food to be abolished immediately the war is finished? How are the problems of Europe and the world in a starving era to be solved, without some planning of the production and distribution of food? The very suggestion of no controls is one of chaos. It is difficult to see how transport, mining, and forestry can be left to chance. The very fact that transport is a vital artery of communication means that there must be some organisation of it. Mining has failed completely to meet the situation under private enterprise and under this semiprivate enterprise. I am not going to say that the mere nationalisation of the mines will solve that problem. There may be very great complications before that problem is brought to a proper solution. Forestry must be planned.
Also, I suggest, very respectfully, that sooner or later we shall have to take into our consideration the control of finance in a much more definite way. I do not want to deal with this subject in detail to-day, but I am satisfied that if we go into the post-war era without some definite arrangement in regard to interest rates and what is to be paid to the banks for the services they render the nation, our financial machine is likely to crack, if not to break down. We are building up a huge indebtedness to the banks for the creation of credit. That is justified so long as it is for services rendered by the banks, but when the huge mass of Government spending comes to an end and private enterprise takes up the loans in the banks, we should see how far it is necessary to pay the banks this huge interest for what is really a temporary national service of creating the necessary power to run the war. When the war comes to an end railway wagons will go


back to their normal use, and so will the use of this money machine. There is no reason why we should continue to pay interest on this huge debt so far when it becomes an artificial book-debt and is really no longer paying for a service. It would be got over simply if the Bank of England were a national concern. So far as the Bank is an issuing department the problem is solved. All the profits come to the Government. If some method could be found of nationalising the profits on credit creation on Government account the interest problem in that sphere would also disappear. But otherwise it will be a very serious problem financially.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) dealt with controls, and said that as soon as possible they would have to disappear. He had no sooner said that than he proceeded to deal with conscription. He pointed out that conscription—which is the control of people's lives—was a very important and salutary piece of legislation. I want merely to suggest that if it is good to control the population by conscription, it is certainly good that we should control the means of life in this country by planned effort. The war has shown the people in this country the great possibilities of co-operation. They expect the same urgency to be shown in dealing with post-war problem as has been shown in dealing with the war itself; and no doubt they will protest very vehemently if it is not. Some of the problems will arise immediately the war finishes. There is no indication in the Gracious Speech how these problems are to be tackled, and whether they are to be tackled with any urgency. Demobilisation is one which is evidently under planning. I do not see any solution to the problem which will satisfy everybody. The question of whether married men or single men, married women or single women, will be demobilised first; whether men with jobs or men without jobs will come out first; whether men with homes or men without homes will come out first; is so complicated that it baffles any prophecy. This is an administrative matter, which, I take it, is under consideration. The question of housing has been mentioned. Great disappointment is shown with the programme outlined in the Speech because there is no indication that the first part of this problem is to be

solved—that is, the provision of land and powers for the local authorities to have that land ready, and, if necessary, prepared for the houses.
Perhaps the greatest problems that are going to face us after the war is that of full employment. That problem divides itself into two categories. There is first of all a great deal of confusion over the scramble for the distribution of industries which already exist. People all want light industries in their areas. They all want a diversion of industries to their areas. That simply means redistribution of existing industries. No one seems to pay attention to the other more fundamental question of whether there are enough industries to employ all the population and enough markets for all that the industries produce. Capitalism has probably taken the human race further in a shorter time than any other system which has ever existed. It has developed the productivity of industry to such an extent that it seems likely that there is no problem of production which we cannot overtake. Therefore, the problem of production, normally speaking, is not a serious one. This war has shown that once we organise ourselves there is nothing that can stop us, and nothing that we cannot produce. I think that production will not be a serious problem: the problem will be how to distribute what we produce. Distribution depends on the organisation of markets.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to the problem of foreign markets. I may be wrong, but my view is that when this war finishes no Government in the world will allow commercial travellers to run up and down the trade avenues of the world doing as they like. It would appear from tendencies which came into being before the war that international trade will exist only by the consent and by the arrangements of Governments. Therefore, so far as our country is concerned, it would appear that it is very largely through the agency and the help of the Government that that international trade will develop. It is necessary for us to realise that international trade, if it is going to be of a competitive nature, may bring about some of the difficulties from which we suffer to-day. I would urge the Government, in the discussions which bring about the arrangements for peace, to see that the economic rearrangement of the world shall play an


important part. My own view is that there ought to be international plans for the control of the main economic products over which disputes arise, such as coal, iron and steel, rubber, and those other commodities which are not distributed all over the world but which are required all over the world. They ought to be brought under some international organisation, so that they might be distributed under rules and regulations generally acceptable to all. If that is done, the market can be measured. At home a great deal of our own markets can be measured, and probably are being measured at the moment.
Once that measurement has been reached, approximately, there will be that reserve of labour which we call "the unemployed," which will not be absorbed, and which will be the real crux of the problem. So far, we have seen no proposals which are going to absorb the unemployed. There are various possibilities. There is the possibility of making industry, by regulation of hours, expand and contract, so that it can take up the slack, or expand if there is more work. It may be that public enterprise—and this is my view—will have to supply the deficiency that cannot be met by private enterprise in providing full employment. It is the business of the Government to act as the governor does on a steam engine in order to keep the industrial machine working steadily at its best and to prevent booms and slumps and crises occurring from time to time. It is not necessarily a conflict between two points of view. What we call Socialism, economically, has been proceeding for a generation, as one of our well-known friends has said, with the inevitability of gradualness. Full production must be developed by planned foresight and not left to chance.
The war has proved to people what can be accomplished by energy and by a Government with decision and an immediate desire to help these problems. My friends and I would like to see the Government ready to act with as much speed in dealing with immediate post-war problems as they do with regard to war problems. We are spending £14,000,000 per day on war—the hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to this—and people ask why we cannot spend that amount on peace. If we are willing to continue to do without all the things that

we are doing without just now, there is not the slightest reason why we should not spend it on peace; but when the war comes to an end people will immediately want to spend a little more on themselves and less on other people and other purposes. It will be a contest between what is desired for public enterprise and what is desired for private consumption. The amount to be spent in peace will be slightly less than what we spend on war but the general public will desire to see that the maximum capacity of the country is used for the benefit of all the people, and they are entitled to ask that, as long as there are people without homes and goods to consume, there ought not to be people idle who can produce these things. That requires planning and organisation and we look to the Government to speed up the processes outlined in the King's Speech. We have no grumbles about the direction or about those who are driving the machine, but we have a feeling of impatience about the speed which is indicated, and we want the process to be geared-up so that it will move quickly towards the goal. We cannot leave peace to chance. The alternative is to organise the nation and, if possible, the world, for the alternatives before us are to plan or to perish

Mr. Shephard: This is the first time that I have risen to address the House, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me and show their indulgence, as is usual on these occasions. I want to refer to two matters only in the Gracious Speech—those dealing with the transition from war to peace, and employment. A year ago, during the Debate on the Address, the Minister without Portfolio, talking of demobilisation, said that our plans must be prepared well in advance. I would like to know whether those plans are now prepared and, if so, can we know what they are? There is widespread anxiety on the part of all who are serving in the Forces, and particularly on the part of those who are many thousands of miles away and feel that their claims might be lost sight of on that account. I appreciate that we do not know in what circumstances the war will end, but I hope that during the Debate we shall know the general principles on which our demobilisation plans will be based.
The problem of demobilisation is closely connected with the change-over of indus-


try from war to peace. At the end of the war, industry will be faced with immediate difficulties. Raw materials of all descriptions will be in short supply. Industry has been concentrated, factories have been requisitioned for war purposes, and the ability of industry to absorb the men and women both in the Forces and on war work will be dependent to a large extent upon a proper appreciation of these facts. I hope that the Board of Trade will be fully alive to the need for supplying industry with the necessary releases of raw materials as they become available and that Government Departments concerned will release requisitioned premises at the earliest possible moment. May I give an example which is typical of many in this country? I happen to be connected with a firm which before the war employed approximately 1,500 people in the textile trade. During this war 1,000 of these people have gone into the Forces or are working on more urgent war work. Two-thirds of the premises of that firm have been requisitioned for essential war needs, and before these men and women can be re-absorbed these permises must be restored and adequate raw material must be made available. This problem calls for very careful co-ordination, because it is on these factors that orderly demobilisation and re-absorption into industry must depend.
I want to turn to the subject of employment. Most of us will agree that the economic system which prevailed in this country prior to the war failed to cure mass unemployment, and if we are to achieve full employment, we must know the causes of that failure and remove them. Industry itself is not in a position to produce an over-all plan, co-ordinating all the various factors that combine to give full employment. The Government alone can do that. If we accept that full employment is a Government responsibility, then the Government must produce the plan, leaving it to industry to work it out. Probably a great deal of our past trouble has been due to a lack of essential planning. I hope there is going to be far more Government control as far as this matter is concerned.
As to the position we shall face, after the fighting ceases the vast consumer-markets that have been unsatisfied for over four years will suddenly assert their

needs. At home we have been living on an austerity standard. Capital goods have been wearing out and will need replacing. Four million new houses will have to be built. In fact, the whole range of men's requirements will need replenishing. Abroad, export markets, with their accumulated demands, will assert themselves, and trade in this country will be buoyant and active and, apart from transitional unemployment, there should be work for all. In the first few months after the war our problem is far more likely to be one of shortage of man-power than of abundance. Our Forces numbered less than 400,000 before the war in 1938, and, if we are to play our rightful part in keeping the peace and defending ourselves, it is far more likely that the figure will have to be nearer 1,000,000. When the school-leaving age is raised—as undoubtedly it is going to be—it will mean that 250,000 boys, approximately, and 100,000 girls will be permanently lost to industry. If you take these two factors together, it is likely that we shall be short of approximately 1,000,000 people as compared with pre-war days. That is our immediate outlook after the war, and I do not want to elaborate upon it. When the vacuum has been filled, this transitory stage will give way to more normal conditions, and our task will be to give full employment with a decent standard of living.
I am not proposing to cover all the factors that relate to this problem, but I want to say a few words on four of them—the location of industry, particularly with reference to the special areas, the export trade, the import trade and the home market. As to the first point, location of industry, we all know the great anxiety there is with regard to this on the part of those people who live in the special areas. It is a straightforward issue. Either we take new industries to these areas or the people must leave these areas and go to other parts. The social services already exist there, and to me it would seem to be almost inhuman to uproot people with established local customs, almost speaking a language of their own, whose associations must go back many generations.
May I make a suggestion to the Government in this connection? Will they not consider some form of licensing for newcomers into industry? It might work in this way. When a new firm wished to


start in business, it would first have to obtain a licence from the Board of Trade, and having obtained, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Labour, an over-all picture, the Board as a condition of granting that licence, could direct the new firm to an area where new industries were required. In this way there would be proper co-ordination of industry and labour, and the special areas problem would gradually be solved.
On my second point, I believe that the need for increasing exports after the war is fully realised by all responsible people. It is the foundation on which our national economy is built, and, as we know, just prior to the war, we were failing to balance imports with exports, despite our huge investment income. A few weeks ago I put a Question down to ask how much of our investment income had been lost since the war, and I was told that it would not be in the national interest to disclose the figure. If we knew what that figure was, we would be able to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I have seen statements of responsible people that we must increase the volume of our exports by 50 per cent. if we are to maintain our standard of living. I have no doubt we shall be able to do this in the abnormal years that will follow the war, but what are the long-term prospects? Many of our old staple industries—cotton, coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding—were losing ground before the war. These basic industries are vital to our economic life, and I hope that this Debate will not end without some indication from the Government of the steps they propose to take to restore these industries to prosperity.
We are no longer able to compete with low-grade goods with which at one time we supplied the world. The Dominions will have become largely industrialised during the war and will manufacture many of the goods they formerly imported from us. Our hopes for an expanded export trade will rest largely on finding markets for high quality goods and on the further development of our Colonies and the backward countries. I should like to mention one of our industries, which probably has the greatest potential export market of any in this country, and that is the motor car industry. Owing to our existing system of horse-power tax, our manufacturers of motor cars have never

been able to compete in the world's market, and this huge market is mainly in the hands of the United States, but, now that we are planning for our postwar policy, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider if the time is not opportune for making or substituting an alternate form of tax and so giving this industry the chance of obtaining a fair share of this great market.
There is another point in connection with export trade which I think needs stressing. Manufacturers who produce for the home market are seldom enthusiastic about the export trade, although, in many cases, their products would find a ready market overseas. They are not export minded; they think that the export trade requires a great deal more detailed work than the home trade. Prices are often not as remunerative. Evidently overseas markets require different styles and designs which they are not prepared to study. Might I suggest that the Department of Overseas Trade, by some form of publicity, stimulates the interest of those manufacturers and encourages them to cultivate an export trade? A pamphlet, setting out in simple language the urgent case for exports and advising manufacturers on how to start an export department, would be of great help. The large firms, or course, require no advice, but there are many thousands of small firms in this country who have a contribution to make, who need help and guidance. I hope there is going to be much more Government assistance through the Consular Services. I want to see a commercial department attached to every embassy and consulate and staffed by men of practical business experience. I hope the Government will continue their export credit facilities, and I want them to disclose forthwith the help they propose to give to the export trade. I have heard the argument put forward that since our internal trade is 90 per cent. of our total industrial production, the export trade is only of secondary importance and cannot be a big factor in curing unemployment.
May I say that this argument is unsound? It ignores the fact that 90 per cent. of the home trade is dependent entirely on being able to import the necessary raw materials. Full employment must depend, in the first case, on the import trade, which, in turn, depends on


the export trade. The export trade makes its contribution to employment in three ways: first, by direct employment of the people engaged in making the goods that are exported; secondly, by its contribution through the shipping trade, and, thirdly, by supplying the necessary means for our imports of raw materials, which, in turn, are converted into manufactured goods by our labours. On the question of imports, I do not propose to say more than a few words. We may have to adopt a more realistic attitude than we have done in the past. We must strike a balance between the advantages we should derive by way of helping employment through importing less foods and raw materials as against the cheaper price at which these foods and raw materials could be imported, and we may find that it will be in our interests to adopt or accept a modified form of economic nationalism.
My fourth and last point is about the home market. When we have secured the necessary imports to enable industry to function, our task is to provide an expanding home trade sufficient to enable the nation to consume what industry can produce other than that part of it which is exported. That is what we are doing now during the war. We are consuming all we produce, and, as a result, we have full employment. But the same considerations which govern war needs do not apply in peace-time economy, and we must find ways and means, on sound economic lines, whereby sufficient purchasing power is in the hands of the people to keep industry fully employed. We failed to do this in the past, and the result was that machinery has been idle and men and women have been out of work. As I have previously said, the home market absorbs approximately 90 per cent. of our industrial production. It is obvious, therefore, that if we can by some means secure better and fuller distribution of goods, we shall be well on the way to attaining full employment. That is our goal. To attain it, we may have to change our ideas considerably, and we may have to accept many modifications in our existing system. More intensive mass production methods and more economical methods of distribution appear to be inevitable, and, in this connection, may I suggest for the consideration of leaders of industry a new approach to this problem which, I think, affords

a partial solution subject to their co-operation?
At the conclusion of the war we shall have in this country vast centres of production built for supplying our war needs. These centres should be turned over to the production of a whole range of household goods of a utility type. Each centre of production should be allocated to the manufacture of a particular article which is in general demand. As an example, one centre might be wholly engaged on the production of utility furniture, another on a refrigerator, another on a sewing machine or some other labour-saving device for the home, and so on, and by this method of manufacture we should be assured of the lowest possible production price. The next step would be to ensure the least possible distributive price charge. Each centre of production would act as the distributive centre of the article it manufactured, and in each town of 5,000 inhabitants or more there would be a show-room, or more than one showroom according to the population, and in this show-room would be the whole range of these utility necessities of life. The orders would be booked at the show-room, and payment would be made at the show-room, but the delivery would be direct from the centre to the customer. That is the scheme in broad outline. I know it may conflict with a good many interests, but I am concerned with trying to balance consumption with production. We failed to do that in the past, and I think we should examine every possible means whereby this can be done in the future. I think this scheme offers a contribution not only to full employment, but also to raising the standard of living of the people.
The nation is expecting the Government to find a permanent solution to unemployment. It will be very difficult to convince the people that we can have full employment in war and that we cannot maintain it in peace. What a tragedy it would be if our young men fighting now for Great Britain came back to a recurrence of that evil and, instead of being able to look forward to the piping days of peace, looked back to the piping days of war. Theodore Roosevelt said some years ago,
If a man is good enough to fight for his country, he is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that nobody can expect; less than that no man shall have.


So, in our plans for full employment, let us not forget the debt we owe to the men in the Forces, and let us see that this time that debt is paid in full.

Mr. Shinwell: It is my good fortune to follow the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard). He deserves, and will receive, our cordial congratulations. Both in delivery and in substance it was a highly commendable effort, and hon. Members will wish to hear more of such speeches in the future. It will be the desire of many hon. Members, including myself, to read that speech carefully and analytically. It contains many proposals, some of which may be acceptable; others it may be found necessary to reject.
The proposals outlined in the Government's programme have met with a mixed reception. On the one hand, they have been welcomed; on the other, criticism has emerged on the ground that the proposals are inadequate for our purpose, but nowhere has there appeared any remarkable enthusiasm. At the same time nobody doubts the beneficial intentions of the Government in the sphere of social reform. All Governments have good intentions, but it is in the application of those intentions that Governments frequently fail. But, as regards the present Government, how could we do other than praise their intentions in the sphere of social legislation? The Government have been reconstructed. Lord Woolton has appeared as the high priest of our reconstruction effort. We welcome his advent and we wish him well. In the Food Ministry and in all matters appertaining to food distribution during his term of office, assisted materially by an able staff and stimulated to some extent by the Pressure of public and Parliamentary opinion—

Viscountess Astor: Not much.

Mr. Shinwell: —he has rendered great service. But if he should by chance falter in the task of reconstruction, he will, we can presume, be constantly stimulated, if not inspired, by the Minister without Portfolio. The Minister without Portfolio is a member of the Labour party. There can be no higher recommendation.

Mr. MacLaren: At the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Furthermore, we are heartened and encouraged by the appearance of the newly-appointed Minister of Health, who deserves our congratulations on that appointment. I recall that in February of this year, in the Debate on the Beveridge proposals, the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged speed upon the Government both as regards the application of the Beveridge proposals and, in particular, in relation to housing needs. Therefore, we may expect much from the advent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Our criticism of the Government's proposals do not relate to the appointment of the noble Lord, even if he is unable to participate in our deliberations. So long as the other place is part of the British political system we must accept that. Nor do we concern ourselves about the changes in the Government. The criticism of the Government's proposals, as outlined in the Gracious Speech, rely upon the fact that there is little in the Speech about actual reconstruction.
Apart from modified proposals in the sphere of social legislation and an attempt to nibble at the problem of land reform, there is no reference to reconstruction. There are no specific proposals for the solution of the coal problem; not a word as to how we are to effect the requisite and effective reorganisation of a major industry which, obviously, is the basis of our industrial system. There is not a word about the steel industry, nor is there any reference made to those industries with which the steel industry is in active competition and, in the future, will be in more active competition. There are no indications of a plan to deal with agriculture and to what extent we intend to develop food production or the nature of food production in the future—a matter of substantial importance. There is not one reference, I would remind hon. Members, to the need for expanding our exports. The question of what is to happen to our redundant war factories is conveniently overlooked. Nor is anything said about transport or the future of the British Mercantile Marine or civil aviation. The important subject of economic relations within the British Commonwealth is not explored. Nor is there any reference to the development of new and synthetic industries, the use of our productive resources or scientific research, or plans for full employment. It has apparently been


forgotten that the basis upon which our social legislation must rest is a vast expansion of our national income. It is no use talking about effective reconstruction until these vital issues are settled. Nor is it any use talking about how much we intend to spend on this, that or the other, however desirable it may be, until we are assured that there will be sufficient to spend.
Social reforms like pensions, unemployment benefit and workmen's compensation are not reconstruction. If they are to be stable and beneficial in character—and that is our desire—they are the fruits of reconstruction. They depend on the national resources, the national income, and indeed it may well be—and we had better face the fact realistically, without pretence or illusions—that many social reforms like the raising of the school leaving age, which is the desire of all of us without exception, or shorter hours of labour and other reforms, may, in fact, lead to a fall in our productive effort and thus to a diminution in our national income. Therefore, the fundamental problem that confronts the nation as regards the post-war situation is how far is it possible either in this way or in that to develop our resources to the maximum and increase our national income in order to sustain the highest possible standard of life for every person in the country. That is our problem.
Let us examine the position. Let us consider what assessment can be made of our economic situation at the end of hostilities. This subject should be discussed objectively, if I may say so, not in any partisan spirit. My reason for offering that observation, strange as it may seem, is that every hon. Member is interested in the development of our resources and maintaining a high standard of life, whatever party he may belong to. No hon. Member, wherever he may sit in this Assembly, dare say otherwise. That is the common object of all of us. We cannot resolve the problems that will face us on the basis of Parliamentary controversy or even on the basis of public controversy. You may discuss it and deliberate upon it; you may become heated, passionate and vehement; you may discuss it objectively and rhetorically, but that does not resolve the problem. We must understand where we are.

Moreover, it is not a question of public or private ownership. Public ownership as postulated by my hon. Friends and myself, with or without limitations—because there are some who are inhibited in expressing themselves on this subject; it is not quite clear whether they want it or not—is no longer an academic issue, the pet nostrum of Socialists. It is something that in the course of years has been dovetailed into our national and industrial social effort. The Prime Minister, in the course of a reply to a Supplementary Question the other day, declared that he was a lifelong opponent of Socialism. It was, for the Prime Minister, a foolish observation, because no one in modern times can be a full-fledged opponent of Socialism.

Viscountess Astor: What is Socialism?

Earl Winterton: Let us hear a serious speech.

Mr. Shinwell: Nothing has proved more beneficial to the war effort than the adoption of the principles of co-operation and collectivism. You cannot employ those principles for the purpose of gaining victory over your enemies and then discard them in the hope of rendering assistance to your friends. It is quite a mistake. The Minister of Production delivered a speech the other day—[Interruption]—I am not quite certain whether that applause is intended to convey relief that the right hon. Gentleman delivered a speech or is due to the nature of his observations—a speech which contained many excellent ideas, but in seeking to uphold the virtues or alleged virtues of private ownership he declared that it was private ownership which imparted colour to our lives. No doubt private ownership imparts colour to the lives of some of us, but there are millions of people, the victims of private ownership, who have no colour in their lives at all—they live drab, colourless lives. It frequently depends on the point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has one point of view, we have another. But these ex parte statements are of no value. To seek to uphold private ownership not because of any other virtues that it may possess but because it imparts colour to the proceedings is absurd. I could make out a better case for private ownership myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over here."] There is no reason why I should change my geographical position. Hon.


Members are gradually by their utterances making ready to change theirs.

Mrs. Tate: They would have to make better speeches than the hon. Member is making now.

Mr. Shinwell: I am a novice in these matters compared with the hon. Lady, whose appearances with the Brains Trust denote remarkable intelligence. We must make the best of our own intellectual resources, such as they are.

Viscountess Astor: There is something more important than intellect—character.

Mr. Shinwell: It was once said by an employer to an employee who was about to be dismissed and who asked for a character that he would be better without one. I am not suggesting that that applies to the Noble Lady. Let us consider what will be the nature and the amount of our resources in future years. Consider the debit side of the ledger. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to the reluctance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform the House of the various assets available to us now and his estimate of the amount that would be available at the end of the war. The Chancellor declared that it would not be in the public interest. I hazard a guess. It is doubtful whether foreign assets at the conclusion of the war will amount in all to more than about £400,000,000—a very small sum indeed. What of our internal resources? We must no longer consider our internal resources in isolation. We have to consider them in relation to the vast resources of other nations, with whom, in spite of all the idealistic utterances about international co-operation, we may be in competition. It is not what we desire in this world but what we get that matters.
Moreover, let us not forget that like other nations we shall be denuded of a large number of our young persons. That is an unfortunate fact which we all deplore. It is true that other nations will be in a like situation, but with this difference, that the United States has a population of 130,000,000 and Russia has a population which is estimated of 190,000,000, and because of the high birth-rate it is estimated that in future years the percentage of young persons available for employment—the kind of employment which would play a very

large part in industrial reconstruction—is far higher than anything that we possess. It is in that setting that we must consider our internal resources. Moreover, we have to consider our resources in the framework of the kind of organisation that we possess. Changes in industrial organisation may display themselves in the course of years, but on the assumption that there is to be no change in our industrial methods and in the basis of our industrial life our resources are adversely affected. That is the debit side of the ledger except that we shall be deprived of a very large part of our Mercantile Marine. That is no light matter. We may be under an obligation to the United States. In effect, grateful as we are to the United States for rendering assistance in that regard, it is to be placed on the debit side of the ledger. When you are under an obligation you cannot regard it as an asset. It may prove to be a very serious liability.
On the other hand, we have very large assets. We have great skill and technical ability. We have good will. We have a people who, in spite of obvious social defects which we all deplore, have perhaps been accustomed to a better standard of life than the peoples of other countries, with a few exceptions, and that is all to our advantage. But the greatest advantage of all lies in the possibility—I do not put it higher than that, for it is not a fact as yet—that if we could by some means provide full employment that would enormously increase our national income. I shall not weary the House with statistics; I think they are familiar to many hon. Members who have studied this subject. It may be that our national income as a result of full employment may be increased by many hundreds of millions. That is worth considering. It is out of those resources that we shall have to pay for our social legislation. It is idle to pretend that you can get social benefits without national income. The greater the national income, if wisely used and if effectively distributed, the more likely we are to benefit from social legislation. Let me return, for I believe it to be a matter of substantial importance, to the comparative resources of the United States, Soviet Russia and Great Britain.

Viscountess Astor: What about the Empire?

Mr. Shinwell: I shall come to that. It is a matter upon which I am very anxious to address the House, as, indeed, I have done before. Russia has adopted a system of state ownership brought about, not as a result of some political change, but brought about as a result of revolution. State ownership has enabled Russia to organise their industrial life effectively. I will not go so far as to say altogether efficiently, but effectively certainly for the purposes of the war. What they have done in war will enable them in the days of peace to produce still more effectively, and with a great population at their disposal they will be in a very strong economic position. On the other hand, the United States of America has a system of extreme individualism, but she has vast resources.
The problem for Great Britain, as I see it, is this. In the days of peace that we hope will shortly come we have to consider what is the role of Great Britain in the world. In the past the role of Great Britain to a very large extent has been—I hope hon. Members will not pounce on me because of this—the role of mediator between nations. The fact that Great Britain was strong economically and had a great Navy at her disposal gave her a preponderating influence among the nations. The Navy has rendered remarkable service to the nation and to the United Nations, but in the future the strength of the Navy will not be so formidable in relation to peace as it was in the past. Air power has made a difference. I pay the highest respect to the Navy, but we have to face facts. As regards the economic position of Great Britain in the future, we were in the past a great market capable of absorbing the products of many countries throughout the world. It is not certain that we shall be in the position to absorb those products and we may not be the greatest market. The ball may pass to the feet of others, perhaps Russia, perhaps the United States of America; it depends on the internal policy they adopt. In so far as our internal market diminishes we may not in our foreign relationships be a formidable power to enable us to continue in the strong role we played before the war.
That is the position of Great Britain in the future as I see it. What must we do? We can do one of three things. We can

either attach ourselves to the United States of America in an economic sense, in which case we shall be dangled at the end of an economic string because it depends on the policy adopted by the United States. If she adopts an internal economic policy of public works, using her vast resources for the benefit of the people of the United States, using her gold resources for full employment and the like, she will not be to that extent a formidable competitor with ourselves. If, on the other hand, she adopts an investment policy throughout the world it may prove a very serious matter for us. In any event, there are dangers in attaching ourselves too closely to the United States. With regard to Soviet Russia, there are perhaps ideological advantages in attaching ourselves to Soviet philosophy, but that would immediately create such a controversy in this country and throughout the British Commonwealth as to render nugatory all our efforts. We much approach the matter realistically, because it is not a question of what you want; it is a question of what you can get.
Therefore, we have to consider our position. In my judgment independence in the sense that we are not tied to any other country is essential. Not that we should renounce all possibility of some form of co-operation with other countries. That is also essential. But independence is, in my judgment, the integral element in our survival as a great nation. How is that to be brought about? In my view—and I am not speaking as a first class Imperialist; I have come to this conclusion as a result, if the House will permit me to say so, of an objective study of the problem—the strength of Great Britain in the future vis-à-vis Soviet Russia and vis-à-vis the United States, in order to enable us to play our full part and perhaps enter into co-operative relationships with these great nations, lies in an even better economic understanding with the countries of the British Commonwealth. That is not all. Let us not forget that there are Labour Governments in New Zealand and in Australia. There are Governments which seek to raise the standard of life of the people. There are Governments which believe in full fledged social legislation. There are Governments which have raised pensions to a much higher scale than in this country. There are Governments which are more accommodating as regards workmen's compensa-


tion than we are. There are Governments which have large and expansive views and have imagination. That is all to the good.
Be it noted that even in Canada, hitherto regarded as reactionary in a political sense, Labour and democratic forces, speaking politically, are emerging in strength. It is not a question of political alignment but a question of understanding and appreciating the modern world that confronts us. In addition it appears to me that the proper alignment—and I touch upon this matter briefly with a certain measure of reserve—the proper alignment so far as Great Britain is concerned is to effect some kind of co-operation with the Western European nations—Norway, Denmark, Belgium and France—if we play our cards well, not a hostile France. It is very desirable that we should not antagonise the people of France.
We are not looking forward to a European situation where Soviet Russia, in spite of its great advantages, in spite of its ideology, which many of us accept, is the dominant force; that may be disastrous, because it may antagonise the United States of America and produce another war. We have got to be careful. Further, let us seek the proper political alignment of Great Britain with the Western European Federation and the nations of the British Commonwealth. We must consider the resources of the British Commonwealth of Nations, consider the resources of Australia in territory, in capacity to absorb those who in this country cannot be absorbed in industry. Consider the mineral resources of Australia. Consider the resources of India. If we could by some means raise the standard of life of the people of India by fully utilising the resources of that great country we could create an export market for ourselves over a period of years that would assist materially in preventing unemployment in this country.
Finally, I put before the House this consideration and I put it before hon. Members opposite. They support the system known as capitalism but have they considered whether it is possible for even a vestige of capitalism to survive unless it adopts new methods?

Mr. Hannah: What is capitalism?

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised that a professor should ask me such a question.

What is the whole trend in our industrial life? It is in the direction of monopolies. It is all very well for hon. Members and even Ministers of the Crown to go upon public platforms and concern themselves about the small man. We are all concerned about the small man, but the small man is being swallowed up, and you cannot enable the small man to survive by a system of licences, by making speeches on public platforms or by Government declarations. The monopolies are soaking up the small man, and we have to consider whether it is desirable to allow those monopolies to remain in private hands. That way disaster lies. There is no social advantage in monopoly. Monopolies usually adopt the policy of restriction, and if there is one thing we must guard against in the future—and I address myself to the Minister of Production, for it is his concern to a large extent—it is a policy of scarcity. Great monopolies, taking them by and large, are unconcerned about consumers' interests. If you are to have a monopoly, if that is the general trend of industrial development, it is far better that it should be governed by State policy.
I am pleading for this—first of all, the maximisation of all our resources if we are to provide full employment, raising the standard of life of the people in whatever way we can, providing social legislation of a permanent character. I want this country to enter into effective economic relations with other countries, but always to remember that we must not be under too severe obligations to those countries. I believe the solution lies in a measure of State ownership so far as the key industries are concerned, and in a large measure of State direction. Unless we are prepared to adopt these devices there will be much peril for this country in the future. I believe, and I am speaking sincerely to hon. Members, that as regards the post-war situation this country is economically in danger. I am seeking to avoid that. Whatever our political opinions may be, we want this country to remain great, not merely great in its capacity to export or in the military or naval sense, or in the air, but great in the sense that it has a great people, a people who are permitted to enjoy all the facilities that our resources can afford. That is the purpose of every one of us, without exception. The only question is as to the means we must employ in order to reach that worthy objective. It may be necessary to have co-


operation even in this country in order to achieve our object, but let us not be under any illusion. If hon. Members want to retain the whole of their precious capitalist system they are going to have no co-operation. It is only on the basis of capitalism accepting modifications in its structure, modifications that are in the national interest, that it is possible for this country to survive and its people to maintain a high standard of living.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: It is not often that this House listens to two Front Bench speakers from the Labour Party with only one speech sandwiched in between—in this instance a maiden speech by a Member who has addressed the House in so clear and charming a fashion. I am not sure which section of the Labour Party those two hon. Members were speaking for, but they certainly presented two different points of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has very effectively presented the point of view which he and some of his hon. Friends believe. I would only add that at least one good thing has come out of this terrible conflict even though it has taken a war of colossal dimensions to bring it about—to get a Member of the Front Bench of the Labour Opposition to speak in favour of the economic development of the British Commonwealth of nations. However, it is not too late to see this sign of change. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham also took the opportunity of making some remarks with his usual ability about the speech made at Oxford the other day by the Minister of Production. I thought it was a very refreshing speech and a speech that wanted making. In this country at the present time we do not want party controversy and party divisions, but when points of view are put forward from one quarter of the House it is only fair to the people of this country that the point of view of another quarter should be put forward. The Minister of Producton seems to have a similar cliché and the same felicity of expression as the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, who speaks for the Labour side, and I take it that one will balance the other and in that way national unity will be preserved.
I am glad that the Minister of Labour intends to submit to the House definite

proposals for legislation straight away, to reinstate men in their pre-war employment and to give work to the disabled. Whatever views we may have on the subject of the Beveridge Report, here at all events is a practical contribution which will please men serving abroad as well as in our Forces at home. It may not be a very great and substantial contribution to the three great things which the Government have promised in the Gracious Speech, namely, food, homes and work for the people, but it is a practical contribution in that direction and I am glad that the Government have brought it forward. I am also glad that the Gracious Speech makes reference—and here I differ from the hon. Member who spoke last—to proposals which will come before the House for discussion in regard to the immense question of a State medical service. I doubt whether any Government in time of peace could possibly introduce legislation of such an immense character without securing a mandate from the country beforehand.

Mr. Kirkwood: Did the Government get a mandate for conscription?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: There was no mandate from the country in regard to a State medical service at all. Whatever shape or form it might take such a scheme would mean great evolutionary and revolutionary changes in this country, not only affecting a great and long-standing profession, but affecting every man, woman and child in the country. It is only right that before submitting legislation to the House the Government should wish to hear the feelings, wishes and desires of the House and the country in regard to such a very great reform.
There is an omission from the Gracious Speech closely concerning the great Principality of Wales. There was no mention of any measure of devolution. After the war the Parliament of this country will be faced with immense problems in home affairs at the same time as it will have to deal with the rapid development of our great Commonwealth. Under our present system of Government that will be difficult. I am sorry therefore that no mention was made of any proposal for devolution for Scotland and Wales. What Wales wants as a preliminary measure is a Minister to speak


for Wales in this House and inside the Cabinet, a Secretary of State for Wales, just as we have a Secretary of State for Scotland. That is a demand of Wales in a unanimous resolution at an all-party meeting of Members of Parliament from Wales and supported by a large conference of all the local authorities in Wales. It has been advocated for something like 40 years. Wales has very special problems in education, agriculture, trade and industry, as well as in questions of nationality and language and the administration of justice in the courts. I appeal to the House and the Minister of Reconstruction and to his able deputy, the Minister Without Portfolio, and ask them for their co-operation in this matter.
Reference has already been made to the Minister Without Portfolio, for whom we have considerable sympathy. He never had much power, and although he called himself the Minister of Stimulation we had no means of finding out whether there was any result from the stimulation. We hear a great deal about planning. The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Bench tried to minimise it, but if he advocates Socialism in toto it means complete planning by the State and the abolition of liberty.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member means the abolition of poverty.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: It is impossible to have a completely socialised State without the abolition of liberty. I have been a critic of the Government on more than one occasion, but although I always think, in the words of Gordon in his Khartum papers, "that this great people have never had the Government they are worthy of," nevertheless, on the whole we can say that this Government in time of war have brought us through great crises, tribulations and difficulties with a degree of competency that no other Government in the world could beat, and from that point of view the Government are to be congratulated. I hope that when the war is over some system of National Government will be continued in the State, because great efforts will be required from this little country, standing by itself in Europe, perhaps with the exception of Russia, facing immense problems at home and abroad, and it will require a great degree of confidence. I do not say that a party

Government would not be capable of governing this country from either side of the House, but I am sure that Labour Ministers inside this Administration feel that the problems will be of such a character that a party Government would find it impossible to solve them.
Some measure of planning will be required. I have been brought up in the tradition of individual enterprise and initiative such as has built this great country and Empire, and I hope that nothing will be advocated or carried out which will mean too much regimentation, documentation and discipline. Those are not the conditions in which our people best thrive, and the imposition of them could only lead to results which would be a disappointment to our friends everywhere after the supreme efforts we have made in this war.

Commander King-Hall: I should like to say, first, that I thoroughly agree with the observations made by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) on the necessity of having a National Government at any rate immediately after this war. The same thought occurred to me as I listened to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I thought his intelligence overcame his ideology and that he faced up to the situation in a realistic manner. The nature of the post-war problems will be such that people will find it absolutely impossible to go back to party politics. If I do not dwell in detail on what was said by either of the two previous speakers, it is because I wish to detain the House on a subject which so far as my researches have gone has not been debated in this House since 1778.
The most Gracious Speech from the Throne I think might be compared in time of war to an operation order which has been prepared by the political general staff of the Government. From the speeches which one has heard it has been evident that opinion has differed as to the real meaning and significance of that operation order. The optimists, among whom I think I shall include the members of the Government, tell us that it foreshadows a heavy legislative programme during which it must be assumed, I think, from that point of view that the semi-mechanised brigade who support the Government will go forward and seize various areas uncertain in extent marked on the political


map, with the names of Beveridge, Barlow, Scott, Uthwatt and so forth, and certainly we have been promised in military language that the Butler salient will be reduced. It has been jutting into our lines for many months. On the other hand, there are cynics who say that the Government will refuse serious battle and go into a kind of permanent consultative huddle with the troops. There are other Members who think the operation order will be greatly improved by amendment. For myself I remain in an attitude of restrained expectancy. Whatever Members think as to whether the Gracious Speech, when we look back on it in a year's time will have produced a mouse, a mountain or merely gentle undulations, I think everyone agrees that this is a very important Parliamentary talking occasion, perhaps the most important occasion during the year, a period during which there is a sort of Grand Inquest, a general inquiry, into the affairs of the nation. On that I think all Members are in agreement. I hope that when I sit down it will also be agreed by Members that I have put before them other considerations which are non-controversial but at the same time of great importance to the House and that this is the proper occasion in our Parliamentary year to raise this question.
One of the most significant developments in the constitutional evolution of this House in the last 300 years has been that whereas in the past Members spoke solely to each other they now not only speak through you, Mr. Speaker, to each other, but what they say can be read by the whole world. If we were willing to admit the microphone to our proceedings, we could be overheard by the whole world.

Viscountess Astor: That would be dreadful.

Commander King-Hall: I entirely agree, if the Noble Lady will allow me to say so in my own way. Speaking as one who has had a good deal more experience of broadcasting than of speaking in this House, I am perfectly certain that any attempt to broadcast the proceedings of this House would irretrievably destroy the character of our Debates. Nevertheless, the fact that what we say in this House can be read by someone in a London club or a newspaper office in Washington before the Member who is speaking has resumed

his seat has introduced a new problem into Parliamentary life. This broadening of the base of democracy, the transfer of political power from the few to the many, has brought into existence the problem of the public relations between Parliament and the nation. It is not a simple problem, and it is complicated, because it involves two considerations which are actually opposed to each other. On the one hand, there is the consideration that I believe that all Members feel, that it is of the greatest importance to keep our Debates informal, flexible and real Debates in the strict sense of the word. That is the feeling which probably inspired the leader of the Tory Party to say on 13th April, 1778:
We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that no man can be so guarded in his expression that he would wish to see anything he says in this House in print.
Without trespassing on the bounds of Order, I think we all agree that on the occasions when we spy Strangers here there is a noticeable difference in the character of the freedom of the Debate. On the other hand, we have the consideration that we wish our proceedings to become known to the public. That being so, it is not only a question of a report but a report which has an adequate circulation. Therefore, the problem in front of us is how are we to harmonise the requirements of the intimacy of debate with the requirements of publicity. That is the problem of the public relations of Parliament.
Before I submit one or two suggestions as to how that problem may be solved, or the lines on which it may be solved, I would like to detain the House for a few minutes with one or two thoughts about the historical background of this problem, because it has a very clear bearing on our problem to-day and explains the apparently, to me at any rate, rather mysterious fact that on the whole there is a certain reluctance, to put it no stronger, on the part of the House to take very much interest as to what happens to the reports of its proceedings and the various ways in which these proceedings become known to the public. This indifference is not noticeable in the relations between a Member and his constituents. Most Members are interested in what I might describe as the public relations between themselves and their constituents, but between Parliament as a whole and the nation it is different. Members will find an explanation of this


if they will search the Minutes of the proceedings of the House, because an examination of those Minutes will show that for many years, centuries indeed, it was the object of the House to prevent the public from discovering what was taking place in the House of Commons.
It was not until the Press came into existence that the public found a weapon in its hands with which it was able to bring pressure to bear on Parliament. The real battle began as far back as 1694, when this great organisation which we know to-day as the Press began to take shape in the form of newsletters. In that year a certain Mr. Dyer, a newsletter writer, had the presumption to take notice of the proceedings in this House in his news-letter, and was summoned by one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, to the Bar of the House, and there on his knees was reprimanded for his presumption in taking this action. This was the first instance in a very long struggle between the ancestors of those who sit on these benches and the ancestors of those who are up there in the Gallery reporting our Debates.
I must not detain the House with details of that long and fascinating struggle. It reached a climax in 1771, when the Lord Mayor took the side of the Press and the people. A Member of the House, he was carried in by three Members to the Bar of the House, with his legs and thighs swathed in flannel because he was suffering so badly from gout, and after a very stormy Debate he was committed to the Tower by 202 votes to 39. There were stormy scenes in Westminster that day. The Prime Minister sat on that bench in tears. He had been dragged out of his carriage by the mob. His hat had been torn from his head and then distributed in pieces among the crowd. The Speaker rose to his feet when informed that it was doubtful whether the military could keep the mob under control. He said:
I shall not be the last man to be attacked.
Nevertheless, the Lord Mayor was committed to the Tower. When it was suggested to him that he might prefer to throw himself on the more tender mercies of being confined in the Serjeant at Arms's house here, he cried out, "I ask no mercies of the Treasury Bench." Nevertheless, Parliament had lost the battle. From that moment it turned a blind eye to the fact that its proceedings

were being reported. During the next century its Debates were printed privately by the famous family of Hansard, often at a financial loss. Select Committees reported from time to time on whether it was desirable for this House to have an OFFICIAL REPORT of its proceedings. One of the Select Committees, that of 1878, turned down the idea for the interesting reason that if an OFFICIAL REPORT was published Ministers would find themselves making authoritative statements, which would be quoted against them, to their very great inconvenience. For this reason, it suggested that the House should not have its own OFFICIAL REPORT. In 1909, when there was a further Committee appointed, Mr. Balfour gave evidence before that Committee. He made a remark which I will venture to read to the House, because it bears on the subject:
I feel myself that the House of Commons is losing by the fact that the reporting is less good of its proceedings in the papers, and I do not believe that these sketch accounts of what goes on within our walls, even if they are impartial (which they rarely or never are) are in any sense a substitute for reasoned argument. I am aware that it is rather the fashion to attack the House of Commons, but I still think that there is no place where different questions are better threshed out than on the floor of the House, and that you will never get the same closeness of argument in any newspaper article. It is therefore a real loss to the public that they should be deprived of a very full statement of the arguments on either side, for they have in my opinion no other way of getting them.
As a consequence, possibly, of that evidence, the House decided that it would have an OFFICIAL REPORT. It began in 1909. We were the last of all the Parliaments of the world to have an OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings. That Report, commonly called Hansard, is, Sir, your special care and charge, and it is looked after by the Select Committee on Reports and Debates. But neither the Select Committee nor, as far as I can judge, yourself, if I may respectfully say so, are concerned with what happens to the copies of the Report, and whether they are adequately circulated.
That is a brief outline of the history of how we have come to our OFFICIAL REPORT of the present time. Before I deal with the situation to-day, I must declare that I assume we want the people to be interested in the proceedings of Parliament and easily able to get accounts of what goes on in this House. I would go further, and say that I think it our


bounden duty to take all measures necessary for the proper publicising of the proceedings of Parliament, provided, of course, that nothing is done which destroys the dignity of Parliament. How does the public find out what is happening in Parliament? There are four ways—the Press, the B.B.C., Hansard, and attendance in the galleries of Parliament. I do not wish to say much about the Press. They suffer from shortage of newsprint, and they do their best within the limitations that they have, but even in the largest and most serious papers the degree of compression of our debates is something in the region of 10 to one, and in the others it is about 200 to one—that is to say, every word that is printed has to give the meaning of 200 words spoken in this House.

Viscountess Astor: This is a serious question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just spoken of the little space which the Press has got. Can anyone explain why the average newspaper gives so much space to things which really do not matter when they have so little space, and why they do not give more to serious questions?

Commander King-Hall: I think the answer that the Press would give is that they wish to sell their papers to the hon. Lady. The second method by which the public know of our proceedings is the B.B.C. Again, I think it must be admitted that the B.B.C., in its news and talks does a very good job within the limits of the time it has at its disposal. It will be agreed that the admirable summaries of the proceedings in Parliament, such as those we listen to from my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and others are good and quite impartial. But they are summaries, and can be no more.
Lastly, I come to the question of Hansard, which, from our point of view, is the Gospel, and the full and fruity account of what goes on in this House. In 1909 there were 162 copies of Hansard sold, and the figure to-day is a little over 3,000. That is a deplorably low figure when one considers that it covers the selling of our OFFICIAL REPORTS, not only in this country, but over the whole world. Is it so low because people are not interested in Hansard, because

politically-minded people do not wish to know what is going on in Parliament? That is certainly not the reason. People do not know that Hansard can be purchased; even booksellers do not. I have been told by one who has been 20 years in this House that one could not subscribe to Hansard. Up to June this year nothing had been done to dispel this widespread ignorance about Hansard. One asks whether the Government Departments have done anything to dispel this ignorance. One would think that in Embassies and Legations there would be at least one copy of Hansard for reference. It might be too much to hope that in the vast and heterogeneous pile of miscellaneous literature which always lies in the rooms of our Consulates there should be a copy of Hansard, but surely, one would think, Ambassadors and their staffs would have a copy to which to refer. The official reply of the Foreign Office is that with very few exceptions it is not supplied. I should add that they say that extracts likely to interest Ambassadors and their staffs are sent; but I submit that that is not enough. Up to a few months ago, the British Council, which spends a considerable sum in spreading abroad the British idea, had no copies of Hansard in its overseas libraries. At the beginning of this war I had the honour to make a maiden speech in this House, and I choose Hansard as my subject. As a result of suggestions I made I was asked to give evidence before the Select Committee. A Ministry of Information official, presumably on instructions, came to the Committee and said that it was not advisable that the proceedings of Parliament should be read outside this country. I thought that that was a scandalous thing to say to a Committee of Members of this House. I have every reason to believe that the present Minister of Information holds quite different views on the subject. I hope that he does, and I warn him that greatly different things are expected of him.
As for the Services, they have a thoroughly bad record in this respect. As an ex-naval officer, I should like to say something good about the Admiralty in this matter, but the best I can say of them is that they are apathetic. The Admiralty have information centres at various bases full of maps, periodicals, memoranda and so forth. There is no copy of Hansard.


One must remember that 90 per cent. possibly, or some very high percentage, of the men of the Services were civilians a few years ago, and they use these places; they are politically minded. Never will you in any of these places find a copy of Hansard. The Air Force, again, is quite apathetic about this matter. All over the world large congregations of men are assembled in base aerodromes and so forth, longing for something to read. They are immensely interested in any serious literature of any sort which is put before them. Again, you never find a copy of Hansard in any of these Air Force messes or bases.
When one comes to the Army one comes right down to bed rock in this matter. I really sometimes think that the War Office is a sort of hedgehog tenanted by the enemies of Hansard. It is really quite hostile, so it seems. Only to-day, in answer to a Question, I was informed by the Secretary of State for War that out of 1,190 libraries looked after by the War Office—some are very large ones indeed—not one receives a copy of the proceedings of this House. The neglect of the Army in this matter is even more extraordinary, because as the House will agree the Army educational system is an excellent one. This admirable Army system has produced a very good pamphlet on the general work of Parliament, with biographical details and literature, in which men are recommended to read about Parliament, but there is not a word in that pamphlet from beginning to end which shows that Parliament has its own Report. Hansard is not mentioned. The oasis in this desert of indifference about Hansard is the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary is a good friend of Hansard and sends a copy to the Governors. It may be said that the Services do not want to read Hansard. I do not want to detain the House by giving it the information that I have which is to the contrary, but I can assure Members that the Services are only too interested to follow the proceedings of this House. I have tested it at air stations in Labrador, Iceland, in troopships and at information centres belonging to the Navy, and never have I found anything but the greatest interest in the proceedings of this House
Hon. Members may ask where the evidence comes from that there is this

interest in Hansard. That evidence has accumulated in the files of a non-profit making association known as "The Friends of Hansard" which has recently been formed and which has for its object the increase of the circulation and knowledge of Hansard in order that a larger number of persons in Britain, in the Empire overseas and in the United States of America can be acquainted with, and become interested in, the proceedings of Parliament. It is supported by about 100 Members of this House as well as by Members of another place and members of the outside public as well. It may interest the House to learn that a very well-known personality in American public life has become a friend of Hansard. And here is a significant fact. Yesterday I received a cable from Washington giving names and addresses of Congressmen and asking that arrangements should be made in order that they should receive Hansard. There is nothing more calculated to get the facts across there than that they should read a document which no one can possibly say is propagandist. In the Dominion of Canada a similar association is being formed, and I look forward to the day when, all over the Empire, such associations are formed to assist in popularising interest in the proceedings of our Parliaments.
The "Friends of Hansard" are aiming that Hansard should at least be in every public library in this country. There are towns with over 100,000 inhabitants without a copy of Hansard in the public library for reference. We want to see it made better use of in schools. Some schools are using Hansard in an enlightened and constructive way, but most schools do not know that it can be purchased. Another development is that centres known as "Hansard Centres" are growing up. The son of a Member of this House became interested and with four or five persons in his factory subscribed to Hansard. They met to discuss it once a week. Now in that factory there has been a conspicuous growth of the movement, and there are four groups taking in Hansard and discussing it. Another Member tells me that he has 15 such centres in his division. I hope hon. Members will take the opportunity, when a suitable moment occurs in their constituencies, to let the people know


that Hansard can be obtained and will do what they can to get it distributed among the thoughtful members of constituencies.
In addition to the whole question of Hansard, which perhaps the House is beginning to think is a bee in my bonnet, there are several other aspects in which we must consider the public relations aspect of this House. In the new Chamber the galleries must be more spacious. I trust that it will be possible to give evidence before the Committee considering the matter. It is of real importance that the galleries should be more spacious and adequate, and particularly that every opportunity should be given to young people, possibly through youth colleges, to come down and see the House at work. Documentary films should be made. I am not suggesting for a moment that any film company should be allowed to come in and film us during our Debates, although I would not rule out the consideration on some very special occasion, such as, for instance, when the Prime Minister is able to announce the unconditional surrender of Hitler. I would not rule out the fact that that might be an occasion on which such a thing should occur. A documentary film should be made of the story of Parliamentary Questions. It is extraordinary how ignorant the public is on Parliamentary Questions and of the immense trouble taken by Government Departments to get out the answers. "The Birth and Death of a Parliamentary Bill," "How Candidates are Chosen." All these subjects would be of interest to the public. Good documentary films about Parliament would also be of interest in schools.
Finally, I urge that the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Publication of Debates and Reports, the Committee with which you, Mr. Speaker, are so closely associated, should be drawn so that all these matters come within its scope. May I remind the House that in December, 1918, Field-Marshal Smuts, to whose words of wisdom we listened last week, made a pronouncement and a prophecy:
Mankind is once more on the move. The very foundations have been shaken and loosened and things are again fluid. The tents have been struck and the great Caravan of Humanity is once more on the march.

These were prophetic words. The great Caravan of Humanity, which has been marching hither and thither during the past 25 years in search of a secure camping place, has seen ideological sign posts; some point to the right and some to the left and some up to Heaven and others down to hell. The caravan is still marching. The House of Commons has lost its home during this period in which the foundations have been shaken and loosened. The benches on which we sat have gone, and the Chair from which your predecessor and his predecessors presided over their deliberations has gone too. Many other things which we cherish went up in flames. Amid all that turmoil and confusion—and I fear there is more to come—one thing has remained unshaken, and that is the spirit of Parliament. That has remained unshaken through all this turmoil, and its vigour it undiminished. Parliament to-day and in the future must necessarily derive its strength and determination from the people. I do not agree with those who say that Parliament has lost its prestige or the respect of the people, but we cannot take these things for granted. If the people began to hold Parliament cheaply, Parliament might linger on, but as a kind of ancient political monument. But if Parliament is to remain vital it must mean much to the electorate; they must feel that it is essential to the free way of life; they must stimulate Parliament and by Parliament be stimulated and aroused to the duties of citizenship in a democratic State. For this to happen, Parliament, whilst preserving all its ancient dignity and traditions so that it remains an institution infinitely greater than the greatest of those who compose it, must not hide its light under a bushel. It must be seen by all men to be shining brightly. I would have it to be the searchlight which illuminates not only for our own people but for all the world the path of the free way of life.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I have had the advantage of listening to the greater part of this Debate, and I have, of course, studied with great attention the speeches of hon. Members which I have had to miss through my other duties. I was particularly struck, if I may say so, by a phrase which was used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Colonel Rayner). He


was speaking about academic gentlemen, very often of foreign extraction, who make plans for this country. He used these words:
Thus, the unwarlike plan for the warlike, the cloistered for the man of action, the un-British for the British; and we do not like it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1943; col. 108, Vol. 395.]
I agree with him. In the course of this Debate we have listened to four maiden speeches, three by new Members of the House and the fourth by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). The three maiden speeches by new Members, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir W. James), the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) were full of ideas, and were very felicitous in language. I must make some reference to the other maiden speech in a bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party by my hon. Friend now sitting on the Front Bench opposite. Let me say quite clearly and unequivocally that I agree with a great deal of what he said. He stressed the need for an increase in the national productivity, and it is on that, of course, that our future as a nation depends. It is often supposed that an increase, for example, in the school-leaving age, or an increase in the number of men who are enlisted in the Armed Forces make a contribution to the unemployment problem. They do nothing of the kind. All they do is to reduce the number of those at certain ages who offer themselves for employment. With all that part of my hon. Friend's speech I agree profoundly, and it is upon this that we shall have to concentrate all our efforts in the post-war period—on an increase in the national productivity.
Then we listened to a very interesting and human speech from the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull East (Mr. Muff) and another from the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). He spoke with great knowledge about certain aspects of the housing problem. I think "constructive" is the right word to use about a speech on housing, and it certainly was a constructive speech. I am going to take up later on two or three of the points which he made. Lastly, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) took up his rifle and, with the precision born of long Parliamentary skill, smashed a few electric light bulbs in the roof of the

Chamber and, having done so, then proceeded to hunt rather bigger game. I think the point he made is one with which we should be impressed, about the need for building smaller houses for the older people. This matter of the increasing proportion of the older people in our population, which the statistics demonstrate, is also an important part of some of the problems of social security with which we are faced.
The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, but I think it would be true to say that in the main hon. Members have concentrated on the second part of the Gracious Speech, that is to say, that part which dealt with post-war problems and with problems of reconstruction. I think this is significant. I think that this fact will bring little satisfaction or comfort to the enemy, but I think it is also important that the public should know that this trend of our discussion, this emphasis on post-war problems, does not mean that we shall be content with anything less than the greatest possible impact upon the enemy in the coming months. All that it means is that the British are in confident humour and that this House regards victory as certain and, indeed, imminent, but it would, at the same time, be idle, and indeed, unseemly, to prophesy, to say what we mean by imminent. When is it coming? That we do not know. One or two years in the life of a nation are a small thing, but in the life of an individual they may be very grievous. We do not know. All that we do know is that the Nazi structure is being shaken to its foundations. We can see the cracks in that great, crazy edifice, and it will surely come down in ruins and in ashes before long. But when? That, we cannot tell.
Our preoccupation with post-war problems means just this—that we know that victory is certain, and we think it is imminent, but we are not expressing an opinion in point of time. I have said that hon. Members have addressed themselves largely to the second part of the Gracious Speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) referred particularly to the operations in Cos and Leros. Although in the time at my disposal I must be very short, I would like to say one or two things about these operations. First of all, there are two different groups of islands, one West of Italy and the other East of Italy, which have great strategical


importance. To the West, Sardinia and Corsica represent an entry, if I may use that word, to the French Riviera, and even to the Rhone Valley, while to the East the Dodecanese are a pathway to the Balkans and affect very much the offensive and defensive position of Turkey. Upon which side, if upon any side, was it likely that the enemy would react? We did not know how violently he could react in any direction. In what the Prime Minister called the "pick-up" we got Sardinia and Corsica with very little loss. We did not get a position in the Dodecanese. The hon. Member asked questions about the Ninth Army, but it was not the amount of troops that was the limiting factor in these operations; it was our ability to mount, if you like to call it so, three amphibious operations at the same time. Do not forget the moment when the Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East was making these expeditions into Cos and Leros. He was doing it at almost the same moment as when the Salerno landings were taking place and we were acquiring Sardinia and Corsica. I think the House of Commons in these matters is in a rather difficult position. None of us wish that any form of criticism should be levelled at people who take risks. We do not like to think that when a general is poring over his map a hand should be laid upon his shoulder or that some voice from this place should whisper in his ears, "If you take a risk and it does not come off, you will be criticised." But we must at the same time maintain to the full our right to criticise operations which are based upon rash and not fully thought out risks. This was not one of them. Let me remind my hon. Friend, if I may, of a quotation by Sir Francis Drake—and I apologise for not having identified the quotation as I have only just remembered it. He said, on returning from an unsuccessful expedition to seize an island:
Madam, the wings of victory are fledged with the arrows of death,
That is what we have to remember.
On the subject of post-war reconstruction matters I think I had better address myself to three subjects, and I hope and believe that these are the ones in which the House is most interested. They are, first, housing and town and country planning; second, social security; and, third,

war production in reverse, the process by which our production of munitions of war is to be turned into production for peaceful purposes. I think that of all these things housing would be accorded by everybody first place as the most practical problem and one which can be most easily segregated, examined and the cure determined. Here is a field in which no international agreements are necessary. This is a matter within our own capabilities of organisation. But before I go into this subject I hope the House will forgive me if I stray for a moment into the subject of post-war economics. This subject has been more than touched on by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard). As soon as the war is over, I think we may be quite certain that we shall be faced by three insistent demands. First, there will be a demand for consumer goods, in particular for textiles, for clothing, boots and shoes and for household textiles, carpets and household linen. Never, I suppose, in the history of business have stocks been so depleted as they are in this field all over Europe. There is no stock of any of these things from one end of Europe to another; every garment and carpet made goes straight from the factory to-day into consumption. There is an enormous lag to be made up. The next demand will be for one of the forms of capital goods, namely, houses.
This is a demand which cannot be resisted and must be met at once and as quickly as we can do it. It is unthinkable that we should condemn the demobilised soldier to celibacy because we cannot find a place for him to live in. To these two demands, I think, we must add a third, namely, arrears of essential maintenance. We are living to some extent upon our capital and building up, day by day, arrears of maintenance which have to be met. I think it is also rather a sobering fact that if we are to meet these three demands for consumer goods, housing and essential maintenance, the national savings, as far as we can calculate them, may not support any further substantial programme of capital reconstruction immediately after the war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The reason is that if you spend substantially more than the national savings then you are getting into an inflationary position which will be as disastrous for one side of industry as it will be for the other.

Mr. Stokes: That is old fashioned.

Mr. Lyttelton: It may be necessary to hold back the demands for capital reconstruction somewhat while we meet these three insistent demands. While we are meeting these demands we must be careful to perfect and work out very closely exactly those schemes of capital reconstruction which we are to bring to bear as soon as the demand for consumer goods begins to flag. No one in any part of the House would deny for a moment that there is a great field for capital expenditure in improving and reconstituting the capital assets of the country. "Public works" is a phrase that has a very unfortunate tinge. It means to the common man making a hole and then filling it in again. But it really means nothing of the kind. I mean that whether by private capital or through the State itself we have in this country an immense field for improving our capital equipment in three directions—transportation, power and the further utilisation by scientific means of our greatest and almost our only national raw material, coal.
I must return to housing. The Government have felt that a new definition of responsibility and simplification was called for and this has been reached. The Ministry of Works will be the Government authority to which the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office will look on all matters concerning—and I will read them out carefully:
Plans, designs, specifications, materials and the technique of construction and costs of houses.
The local authorities will, on the other side, have to look solely to the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "For what?"] For all matters concerning housing. I am now meeting the point that there are too many Government Departments concerned with this subject. This is our attempt to simplify the business. I think it is important that the Ministry of Works will really be the technical Department to which housing authorities will look as regards the list I have mentioned.
I must discuss housing in two parts. First of all there is to be a long-term programme. The White Paper on the building industry envisages the employment of a labour force with a ceiling of 1,250,000 for 12 years. Two factors in

reaching this labour force of 1,250,000 have been carefully balanced. They are the demand for building, not only for houses but also buildings which will become necessary for example under the Education Act. That is one thing that has to be balanced up against this force of 1,250,000. The other is the amount of the national savings which can be devoted in the national field to this problem, and that bears on the general remarks that I have made about the volume of national savings. No further steps with regard to the long-term building programme are now practicable until the necessary finality has been given to our demobilisation schemes, and they are under discussion and are not yet in the final state. There are two matters connected with building to which I must refer. First of all, all the brickworks which have been shut down as the result of the war have been kept on a care and maintenance basis. I am prepared to say that there will be no lack of cement or of any building material. I am anxious about the timber position, and I am doing my best, with the help of my Noble Friend the Minister of Works in his capacity as Chairman of the Materials Committee, to increase our imports of timber during 1944. We are certainly short of that essential requisite of building. In all these matters we must open our minds to every new idea and make use of all the knowledge and resource that we are able to display. We have nothing to be ashamed of in what we have done in war production in the matter of ingenuity and invention, and we must apply it to houses. The Minister of Works is now constructing eight or nine demonstration houses. They will be completed in three or four months. They will show a number of new ideas in construction, both in form and also in the materials used, and of course we hope that hon. Members will inspect them and judge of their suitability. We are going to do our best to have new ideas in houses and to put them on experimental sites so that their advantages can be seen.
That is long-term. Whatever the housing programme of the Government is, it cannot suffice for our immediate short-term needs. We have also been considering schemes of an emergency, temporary character, designed to relieve the immediate pressure which will come upon us when there is any substantial demobilisation, whether industrial or military. Many


experiments have been conducted in this field, and within three months the House will be able to inspect some of these dwellings made by the Ministry of Works, and we should very much welcome the criticisms of hon. Members upon them.

Sir Granville Gibson: Are these houses to be erected in this vicinity?

Mr. Lyttelton: They are within easy reach of the House. Before I leave the subject of housing there are certain measures which can be taken during the war itself to which I must refer. Recently the first call on immobile labour subject to urgent war priorities has been given for house repair, conversion and completion of unfinished houses. This subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), and I would assure him that as soon as war necessities permit and there is some substantial diminution in the Government building programme, which is largely concerned with aerodromes and so forth, we intend to make more materials available for house building and to try and use immobile labour which could not otherwise be employed for increasing the immediate supply of houses. We are immediately governed by the stringencies of the Government building programme and of certain materials. Lastly, we are now examining, and hope to be able to implement it, a scheme for assisting local authorities to clear the sites for housing schemes. Again I must make the very natural reservation that these things are governed by war priority. I only want the House to know that as soon as these war necessities begin to diminish here is one of the first places in which we intend to employ any surplus. We are fully aware that at the present moment the civil population, especially in this matter, is living under the greatest strain. We are fully aware of that fact and we are imposing it deliberately. It cannot be imposed beyond a certain point, and I ask the House to believe that it is being done with only one object, the object of increasing the impact during the months immediately in front of us, that is, impact in point of place, or shortening the war if you like to express it in point of time.

Mr. A. Edwards: It probably would not be fair to ask the

right hon. Gentleman what he means by temporary measures, but will the Government keep in mind that under a similar scheme after the last war, temporary dwellings were erected and people are still living in them?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am aware of the pitfalls that may beset us in this, but we definitely must provide for some temporary scheme.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question which I think is of some importance and which I thank my right hon. Friend will answer favourably; that is, in view of the great importance of the announcement, which many of us have heard with the greatest delight, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to issue a White Paper on the subject so that Members may be able to study it in detail?

Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps my Noble Friend will forgive me for not answering that. There is one matter of which my Noble Friend's intervention has reminded me. It is that in these matters when we have the labour and materials available, we are prepared to consider the matter of the £250 limit. That limit is not imposed for financial reasons.

Mr. Lipson: In their short-term policy are the Government proposing to build any pre-fabricated houses, because houses must be built very quickly?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have said that in the eight or nine demonstration houses which the Minister of Works will put up there will be several new ideas in construction, and such things as pre-fabrication and houses with the roof put on first are included. I am not suggesting that the roof will be suspended in space.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are you not going to make any prefabricated or temporary houses for those who are in desperate need of houses until the war is over?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think my hon. Friend has missed the purport of my remarks, which were under three headings: First, the long-term scheme; secondly, emergency and temporary accommodation to relieve the pressure immediately after the war; and, thirdly, what we can do while the war is on.

Mr. Kirkwood: But while the war is on we are waiting in desperation for temporary housing.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have made it clear that in that matter we are governed by war priorities, but subject to that we will do what we can.
In the short time at my disposal I want to turn to town and country planning. The Government have given a pledge—I would remind the House of it—that they will introduce a Bill this Session to deal with the reconstruction areas. Those areas are ones which require replanning and reconstruction from two aspects, and I do not think the second aspect has yet received nearly the attention which it deserves. The two aspects are: Damage by bombing and, in the official jargon, obsolescence. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University and myself were, I think, the first to call them areas which are out of date, but nevertheless we have to accept "obsolescence." That is a very significant thing. The extent to which the Government accept the Uthwatt Report on this particular matter will be clear from the Bill which we are going to introduce. I think we may divide the Uthwatt Report into two parts. The first relates to the procedure by which a public authority is facilitated in acquiring land for these purposes. It proposes, as everyone knows, a number of easements in the procedure designed to make the purchase by local authorities of areas for reconstruction more speedy than it is to-day. As I say, in the main the Government accept the Uthwatt Report upon this procedure. The second part is concerned with the acquisition of development rights and the periodic levy on increases in site value. On this matter the Government have not made up their mind—and they are not in the least ashamed to say so.

Viscountess Astor: They ought to be.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady will perhaps be unaware that there are very great administrative problems involved. We do not accept or reject at the moment the Uthwatt Report upon this matter. Alternatives are now being examined.

Mr. Silverman: If the Government are now in process of examining alternatives to the plan, may we take it that the plan itself is rejected?

Mr. Lyttelton: If that is the way the hon. Member's mind works I am very

sorry for him. If he really thinks that the examination of an alternative involves ipso facto the rejection of the primary scheme I cannot understand it.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is simply putting words into my mouth. I drew no inferences and made no comment, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the inference which he desired the House to draw, and I take it that his answer is "No."

Mr. Lyttelton: I apologise to the hon. Member if that was the meaning of his interjection. I wish to make it clear that the Government have not accepted or rejected the Uthwatt Report on this particular aspect. It feels that the whole field is such a very important one that it must examine the whole problem; and that is where we stand to-day.

Mr. A. Bevan: That statement is very important. An announcement has been made in another place about land values. Is the right hon. Gentleman laying it down that the Government will not accept any more than the 1939 land values?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot in the time I have at my disposal go into the details of the scheme, and I must deal with the matter in broad outline. I have said with great frankness that the two pledges which the Government gave stand, and secondly, that we have not made up our minds on the second part of the Uthwatt Report.
I must deal next with the Scott Report. The Minister of Town and Country Planning has issued a written reply to a Question which was addressed to him to-day and which will be available to hon. Members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I must cut my remarks very short on this subject, and the most succinct way of dealing with it will be to say that the planning aspects of the Scott Report are in the main accepted by the Government. There are 108 recommendations, some of which are confined to stating objectives rather than the means of reaching them. Some of those points involve many other Ministers besides the Minister of Town and Country Planning and we shall have to ask hon. Members to obtain further information by addressing Questions to the Ministers concerned.
A further matter I wish to touch upon is the social security scheme. I quite


understand that the House may be impatient on the subject, and I confess I should have been so myself if I had not been a member of a Ministerial Committee which has to deal with this question. The complexity of it has to be seen to be believed. Take any part of it, say workmen's compensation or the comprehensive medical service, and you become involved in administrative problems of the very greatest difficulty, requiring not only an encyclopaedic knowledge of the background but very great administrative experience in solving present problems. Again I must be short. The bulk of the problem has been tackled. The White Paper is now being drafted. I am giving no promise when it will be laid because when the draft is completed it must come again before Ministers.

Mr. MacLaren: The supply of white paper will run out before long.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think I should say the White Paper will show that the Government have very definite proposals over a large part of the field, but I will be equally candid and say that there are some subjects upon which we are undecided and upon which we wish to take the opinion of hon. Members and to make soundings. I see nothing reprehensible in that. I think the Chinese have a proverb in which they say that to be uncertain is to be uncomfortable but to be certain is to be ridiculous. On one or two of these subjects I prefer to be uncomfortable at this Box rather than to place myself in the other posture. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman is a bit uncomfortable."] When the hon. Member sees the work that has been put into this matter, any discomfort I feel now in being candid—which I think nobody should be ashamed of—will be more than removed when he sees the monument of industry in front of him. Take a matter like the comprehensive medical service. What is there unusual in saying that we have had a great deal of work to do upon it? Does anybody realise that it involves altering the numbers of those entitled to a comprehensive medical service from 18,000,000, the present insured population, to the whole population of 44,250,000? And to those who do not realise that there is a very large, one of the very largest administrative problems involved in that, I would say that this facile business of saying

"Why are the Government so slow, the period of gestation so long?" is useless. The fact remains that the child that is to be produced is one that will affect the lives and future of the whole population.
In the short time that remains to me I want to address myself to the third subject, which is the change-over from war production to peace production. First of all, let me say that I do not think the problem poses itself in such a simple way. It is idle to guess, but I think the probabilities are that the war with Germany will finish before the war with Japan, and that therefore we shall have a period when war production will still absorb an important part of our productive capacity. I may say that my Ministry has been for three or four months making a very careful survey of what is required for the war with Japan. It depends first of all on our ability to deploy forces, because whatever we can deploy we are going to deploy in full. That is a very difficult step, and, unfortunately, when you have determined the deployment against Japan you have only dealt with part of the problem. We have to determine what is the size and what is the equipment required for armies of occupation, and even when these two are determined there is a third question which has to be resolved: What equipment can we rely on from the United States? These are really the three things the Government have to decide: the size of our equipment for warlike purposes when Germany is beaten, and the question of our deployment against Japan, which includes the manufacture of special weapons, particularly those transported by air; the extent of help from America; and the size of our armies of occupation.
We think that this will be a definite transitional period and that we will get probably a partial demobilisation. I have had some discussions recently with my Noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction. We were discussing over a glass of pasteurised milk together at the Ministry—

Viscountess Astor: Hurrah.

Mr. Lyttelton: I thought the Noble Lady would approve. The Minister of Labour was there also, and as it was his birthday he had a glass of unpasteurised milk. We were discussing how this matter is to be handled. The Minister of Labour


and I have a considerable experience of demobilisation of capacity and labour, for large numbers of men have been taken out of the Ministry of Supply and the production of ground weapons during the last 12 months and put on to the production of aircraft and naval vessels, so that on a small scale we have a considerable experience and we have worked so closely together that it may perhaps be described as collusion in many parts of the field. That transfer of many tens of thousands of men has on the whole been done very smoothly, so that the problem which will face us if Germany is beaten first is, on a larger scale, very much the same as that which we have been tackling for the last 12 months. We intend to approach it on a strictly practical basis. The time to talk about the re-location of industry is when the men who are now fighting have been brought back and as far as possible put to work in the industries in which they are trained and skilled. We must begin by approaching the thing industry by industry. It is my duty, for example, to release industrial capacity, so as to meet the wishes of the Minister of Reconstruction and, above all, of the President of the Board of Trade. I wish to release industrial capacity for him so that he may turn it over, first of all to goods for civilian consumption in this country and, secondly, to goods for export, and, thirdly, in order to make what contribution we can towards the problem of relief in the liberated territories. In all this very careful co-ordination is necessary. Let me say again that I agree very much that during the first year or two our problems will not be essentially those of employment but of transfer and of fitting in our labour supply and the supply of capacity to meet a very insistent demand.
I have had to cover a very wide field rather hurriedly. I would like to say that the Government are entirely confident about their ability to handle this period. That confidence is not only in themselves as a Government, but it springs from a much more important source, from our unbounded confidence in the people of this country. The record which they have written during the last four years is imperishable. Our confidence springs from a profound belief—and I think it was a very moving thing to hear the hon. Member for Seaham expressing the same point of view—that we are going to emerge successful out of these peace-time prob-

lems. Our plans for all these matters are well advanced. The decision itself does not take time. What takes time is the collection of the information, its analysis, the fitting of it into this intricate mosaic, and, finally, seeing that no part of it sets up a stress which breaks the others.
I would like, in the last moment available, to refer to the position of the Servicemen who are fighting for us now. The poet said,
It is a sweet and seemly thing to die for your country.
But, believe me, if you have fought and survived there is nothing more bitter or more unseemly than that you should have to live in poverty and unemployment. There is the task. We are addressing ourselves to it with zest, and those who can make a contribution can be sure that they have not lived through these days in vain.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, "That the Debate be resumed upon the next Sitting Day."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [25th November], "That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members," which Amendment was to leave out the word "Seventeen," and to insert instead thereof the word "Seven."

Question again proposed, "That the word 'Seventeen' stand part of the Question."

[Objection being taken to further Proceeding the Debate stood adjourned.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Sir Irving Albery, Mr Assheton, Mr. Benson, Sir Edmund Brocklebank, Major Sir George Davies, Mr. Douglas, Lieut.-Colonel Elliott, Mr. D. O. Evans, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Sir John Mellor, Mr. Pickthorn, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Silverman and Mr. Henderson Stewart nominated Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition or on the back of such sheets, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.

Committee nominated of Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Sir Edward Campbell, Mr. Chater, Sir Reginald Clarry, Mr. Daggar, Captain Alan Graham, Captain Hambro, Mr. Horabin, Sir Percy Hurd, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins, Sir Alexander Russell, Dr. Russell Thomas, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Viant and Sir Richard Wells.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

COLLIERY CANTEENS (TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES SALES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Mr. Daggar: The matter I desire to raise is as insignificant and is also as important as the Board of Trade has made it. I consider that the need for discussing this question ought never to have arisen. It is simply the result of refusing to allow workers to purchase cigarettes and tobacco at the two pithead baths of collieries in my division. In addition the refusal has also been made for similar facilities at other pits in other

parts of the country. The two pits affected in my area are the Llanhilleth Colliery and the Navigation and Aberbeeg South Colliery. We complain that while men in other parts of the country have these facilities, for some reason or other they have been refused for the men on whose behalf I speak to-day. It also affects workers employed in factories not-withstanding the fact that these facilities are granted to factory workers in certain parts of the country. What is more strange in the refusal, for which the Board of Trade is responsible, is that the geographical position of these collieries is unknown to the Board of Trade and to the officials who are responsible for the refusal.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I know where they all are.

Mr. Daggar: I submit that the people responsible for refusing are not as familiar with these particular areas as I am myself and the men employed at the two collieries. These decisions were reached after the submission of three questions to the people who applied for the licence and some very brief consideration by the Board of Trade. The people on making the application are asked the precise hours worked by the miners at the collieries and also whether there are local shops open when the miners come home from their shifts of work. Those questions have been answered, and with regard to these two collieries the information supplied to the Board of Trade is that the morning shift is from 6 a.m. to 1.45 p.m., the afternoon shift, 2 p.m. to 9.45 p.m., and the night shift, 10 p.m. until 5.45 the next morning. It must be obvious to anyone who knows the conditions that for the two shifts during which our people are employed no shops are open and that the purchase of tobacco and cigarettes is not possible in the case of those men who are engaged on two shifts out of three. From all quarters of the House and in all parts of the country mine-workers are being pressed to produce more coal. Yet they are being denied the opportunity of procuring tobacco and cigarettes at pithead baths and canteens. In addition, they are conscripted, coerced, imprisoned and are subjected to very heavy fines. Now by the refusal of the Board of Trade to grant licences they are compelled to purchase cigarettes and tobacco at shops prescribed by the President of the Board


of Trade which, in my submission, is another example of unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject. Such childish and irritable methods are not worthy of a Government which has been appointed to prosecute a total war.
The Minister has informed these people, and he was kind enough to inform me, that he could not grant the necessary licences promiscuously all over the country, or he would find himself in difficulty. I would like to ask what difference there is between buying these articles at one shop and at another or between buying them at a pithead canteen and at a shop? There is no difference at all, unless it is thought that it would improve the war effort. Mention has been made about allowing tobacco to be bought all over the country. That is a statement that is not worthy of consideration because pits are not all over the country. Nor has every pit a bath—which is a discredit to the country—nor has every pit a canteen. These facts are known to most members of the Government, if not to the President of the Board of Trade. It is easy for those of us who can, at any time, slip into a shop or into the refreshment room of this House and buy these articles, to make a pastime of such unnecessary restrictions. I find it difficult, if not dishonourable, to assist in the maintenance of a Government, some of whose members have become specialists in the creation of unnecessary inconveniences and whose motto appears to be, "Do something helpful and useful if you can, but do something. If we cannot have progress, let us have movement." The Minister told us, in reply to a Question I put to him, that he had had considerable conversation and correspondence on this matter with me. I appreciate the use of the qualifying adjective, "considerable." It may mean anything or nothing, but in this case it means one letter and one talk in the course of a walk in the corridor.

Mr. Dalton: I have two letters in my hand now.

Mr. Daggar: The Minister said in a letter:
If we multiplied retail outlets considerably we should reduce retailers' stocks below the safety level and reach again the scarcity conditions which existed in 1941.
There is not one Member of this House who would be impressed by such a state-

ment. Is there a Member of the House who believes that buying these articles at pit-head baths instead of at a shop would deplete the stocks of tobacco at a quicker rate? Sales would not be increased, owing to excessive taxation. There is no encouragement to consume a larger quantity when cigarettes are 2s. 4d. for 20 and tobacco varies from 2s. to 3s. an ounce. To argue that purchasing tobacco at pit-head baths would increase consumption is very stupid. The right hon. Gentleman said he would grant the necessary licences if there were no facilities for storing tobacco in lockers at the colliery. No considerable conversation will convince him that there are hundreds of occasions when, because of the varied working hours, miners cannot buy cigarettes and tobacco from the shops. He is still convinced that the men can buy them at any hour on their way to work and store them in their lockers until they return. If additional men were required to sell tobacco at the pithead baths one could appreciate his attitude, but that would not be the case if licences were granted. After raising this matter in the House I received this letter from a managing director, not in Wales but in England.
I am glad to see that you are taking the matter up re cigarettes. We have put down a fine canteen for our men and have turned it over to the works committee. The profits go to the men and to the Welfare Fund. The snag, however, is the fact that the men are not allowed to sell cigarettes in the canteen. The Board of Trade say our own men cannot sell cigarettes, because there are shops in the village. What a damned tale I The shops near the works are not open when our men come to work and they are closed after many of our men finish work on Sunday and Thursday. The shops are not open. We were refused last year because we did not sell them before the war. I append below the signature of the Union Secretary, who confirms my statement. Our men are told they are doing their stuff and playing a big part in the war, but the Board of Trade will not value them at the price of a cigarette.
I hope the matter is now clear, not only about facilities but about stocks of tobacco and storage. Finally, I contend that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is most unreasonable. It constitues an unnecessary interference with the rights of mineworkers to purchase cigarettes and tobacco where they like. It can only be explained by a lack of common sense and understanding, and it causes much annoyance and irritation among people who deserve considerate treatment. The Board


of Trade case is based upon the fallacy that greater facilities to consume tobacco increase consumption. No additional labour is required, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision and grant the licences for which he is asked.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want to support the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). I have had complaints from various parts of Lancashire, and I speak with particular knowledge of the colleries in that county. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that since the war began canteens have arisen and a large number of new shifts have come into being because of the mechanisation introduced into the mines. At the Ashton Moss colliery they have seven different shifts starting at different times during the 24 hours, and the only shift that can purchase tobacco and cigarettes is the shift that goes on at 10.30 in the morning. All the other people are cut out. They have shifts going on at 6, 7, 8, 11, 1 and 3 o'clock, and then there is the night shift. It is put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that there are over 400,000 selling points in this country for tobacco and cigarettes and that it would increase the demand if he were to grant licences to these canteens. If he were to examine the situation he would find that there is no truth in that statement. Another point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is that if he conceded these licences they would require increased manpower. That is not the case, because attendants are at the canteens all the 24 hours and they would be in a position to meet the requirements of the men when they come out of the pit.
It has been suggested, and I am sorry the suggestion has come from the Department, that the men ought to procure their tobacco and cigarettes before descending the shaft and store them in their lockers. It is obvious to us as practical men that if they stored their tobacco and cigarettes in a heat contained locker they would not be worth smoking. The President of the Board of Trade ought to have regard to the practical mind which has been applied to this problem. The Chisnall Hall Colliery is situated a tremendous distance in the roadway. When the men come out of the pit they cannot get

tobacco at the canteen and they cannot get it at the bus station. They have to go either into Standish or Wigan and have to leave the bus in order to do so. In these days we ought not to expect men who have been underground seven, eight, nine or ten hours to submit themselves to such inconveniences. Let us compare the position at the pit with that of munition workers. The latter can get tobacco and cigarettes at any time of the day, but men who work in the pit are compelled by the very nature of their vocation to abstain from cigarette smoking. Men who are working in deep hot mines chew tobacco and it is a godsend to them. I make no bones about saying that some of our men would sooner go without their food in the pit than go without their tobacco. That may appear strange to some people, but it is true and I speak from practical experience. May I add my plea to the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the changed conditions now prevailing in the minefields and the changed conditions in relation to the shifts at so many different hours of the day, to relax the penalty that he has put and to concede the application for retail licences to these men who so badly need tobacco and cigarettes?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has made a much better case than my hon. Friend who opened the Debate, and if I were merely subject to persuasion on the basis of a polite presentation of a case, I should be much more inclined to make a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince. So far as the main merits of the subject are concerned, I should like to remind the House that the control which my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) finds so stupid and spiteful and silly is based upon a recommendation unanimously made by the Retail Trade Committee with regard to the licensing of retail businesses of all kinds, including tobacconists. That Committee included representatives of all sections, including three trade unionists and one co-operative representative, and I have accepted their recommendation and am carrying it out with every endeavour to make things apply fairly to all sections.
The number of retail outlets for tobacco is now over 400,000, and I warn the House that, although we have got along very well


with tobacco supplies, we have not a great surplus at the present time. There is very little criticism of the Tobacco Control, one of the Controls operating under the Board of Trade. We have succeeded so far, through the great skill of the Controller and those with him, in keeping a sufficient supply of cigarettes to meet the essential requirements of all sections of the population, but the supplies are only just equal to the demand and the level of stocks has fallen very low—I watch this carefully—in relation to what is normal and what is necessary. I must watch very carefully in the interests of the mineworkers equally with all other sections to see that we do not create a situation in which the difficult position of 1941–42 will repeat itself, when, in fact, there were long queues of both men and women lining up for cigarettes all over the country. It is part of my duty to prevent that happening again, and if we multiply the retail outlets for cigarettes, whether at canteens or elsewhere, very much over the present number, you will get such a wide distribution of the relatively small supplies that you will find that all retailers will run short. If I were to grant licences right, left and centre we should soon find that the supplies were running short in the canteens and the men would find they had been hoaxed, that a licence had been granted but the supplies were not forthcoming, neither there nor elsewhere.

Mr. Daggar: They are prepared to run that risk.

Mr. Dalton: I am responsible, and I am not prepared to run the risk of mineworkers being hoaxed. I prefer to speak frankly and bluntly, having mineworkers in my own division. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Abertillery interrupts, he will get less of an answer than if he keeps quiet. I have granted 31 per cent. of the applications made for licences for colliery canteens and am glad to have been able to do it. I have granted only 15 per cent. of the applications made from other classes of workers' canteens, where the need is admittedly less great and where other shopping facilities are more available than in the case of the miners. I will always grant, whenever I can find a good ground to do so, any application for a licence for a canteen, but I repeat, and I say this absolutely flat, that I am not going to grant these licences without proper consideration, because to do so

would be to humbug the miners, who would very soon find that, although licences had been granted to canteens, there were no cigarettes. I cannot discriminate between one application and another. I have been glad to look at the two cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery has put up, but in both those cases there are pithead baths—there are lockers also—and, therefore, I do not think there is so good a case as there might be in circumstances where those facilities did not exist. I say quite frankly I will grant all the licences when I can find a specially good local reason for granting them, provided that the total number granted is not so great as to endanger the proper distribution of the total supply, which my hon. Friend must take it from me, is very small and very sparse.
The present position is that the troops are smoking more tobacco than they did when they were in civilian life. A great number of other sections of the community are smoking more cigarettes. A number of women are smoking a great deal more than they did before they entered upon work in the munition factories. The people in the Civil Defence forces are smoking a great deal more than they did before, and we have to face the fact that the total consumption of tobacco has increased, as compared with before the war, by something of the order of 20 to 25 per cent. On the other hand, the shipping difficulties with which we are faced are well known, and in the total allocation of supplies, we can take credit for the fact that we have done pretty well with tobacco up to now; but it the position is to be maintained, common sense must be applied in not multiplying to excess the number of retail outlets. Let it be quite clear. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery has not quite understood the argument. It is not that people would smoke more if the retail outlets multiplied. The argument is that, if the retail outlets were multiplied, even if people smoked only the same as they do now, you would run down the stocks to such a low point and make so difficult the problem of distribution that a number of retailers would find their shelves were bare and men or women coming there would not be able to obtain their smokes.
I repeat that in the two particular cases which my hon. Friend has brought up, I have looked into the matter very carefully, and I have explained the position


to him in two letters. He said that he had received only one letter. He received a letter from me on 23rd July in regard to Llanhilleth and another on 5th November in regard to the second colliery. I have as I say gone into the matter very carefully with every desire to please, but in neither case can I find ground for altering the decisions. If the hon. Member for Ince has any cases he would like to submit to me, I will be most glad to look into them. In any case, where any hon. Member can put up special reasons, or where, owing to the inconvenience that would otherwise be caused to the workers concerned, a licence should be granted, I will be glad to go into the matter, subject to the over-riding consideration that we must not, in the interests of the community, including the mine workers, so multiply those retail outlets in time of war to such an extent

that they will he so scattered that the public will be denuded of tobacco, rather than supplied with it.

Mr. Daggar: I have no desire to support the hoaxing of mine workers but I still contend that you do not deplete stocks by affording a man an opportunity of buying tobacco at pit-head baths instead of a shop. If he buys at one place he does not buy at the other unless greater facilities mean an increased consumption of tobacco, which I contend they do not.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his help it enabling us to discuss this matter.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.